The State of Jharkhand Vs Manti Devi Alias Manti Singh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.640 of 2022

¶2

-----

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

The Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.:Dhurwa, Town and District : Ranchi, State : Jharkhand.

¶5

The Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhu, P.O. & P.S. : Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, State : Jharkhand.

¶6

Jail Superintendent, Ghaghidih Jail, P.O. & P.S. : Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, District : East Singhbhum, State : Jharkhand. … … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Manti Devi @ Manti Singh, wife of Sri Tahlu Singh, Resident of Village – Nawali, P.O. Nawali, P.S. Suhwal, District : Gajipur, State : Uttar Pradesh.

¶9

… … Respondent

¶10

¶11

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶12

------For the Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-III For the Respondent : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate

¶13

¶14

Order No. 11 / Dated 10^th June, 2024

¶15

1. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, appearing for the appellant State has submitted that one supplementary affidavit has been filed with a prayer to ignore the Defect No.3.

¶16

2. He further submits that Defect No.5 which pertains to filing of typed copy of few pages may also be ignored since the original record of the writ petition is tagged with the record of this case.

¶17

3. Considering the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State appellant as well as submission made on behalf of the appellants, the Defect No.3 and 5 are hereby ignored.

¶18

1

¶19

4. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment/order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5899 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the following directions have been passed :-

¶20

“Accordingly, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in view of the above propositions considers that compensation is to be awarded to both of the under-trial prisoners namely Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh as well as other prisoner Pramjit Singh, as it is not in dispute that both were in under the State custody. Thus, this Court directs the State of Jharkhand to pay the dependent/family of both the victims namely Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh and Pramjit Singh to pay Rs.5,00,000/- each within a period of 60 days from today. Though, Pramjit Singh is not the petitioner before this Court, but this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to grant such relief to the dependent/family of the deceased, who was also prisoner and the state has failed to safeguard his life which is in violation of the constitutional rights granted to prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶22

This Court also directs the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to constitute a committee with regard to formulating a model for payment of compensation for different types of violation of fundamental rights in the State of Jharkhand either to the under trial prisoner or to the convicts or for the mob lynching in pursuant to the direction passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons case (supra)and that must be completed within a period of 90 days from today without any further extension, as such direction has already been passed by the Hon’ble

¶23

2

¶24

Apex court in the year 2017 and nothing has been done by the state in pursuant to the order passed by the Apex court, till the date.

¶25

The Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit in compliance of the aforesaid direction and in compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons case (supra). The State Govt. shall consider the same in accordance with the model for compensation formulated in view of direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, if more money is to be paid for such types of death as happened with Pramod Kumar Singh @ Gautam Singh and Parmjit Singh victims of this case, the same shall be paid to their dependents in accordance with law.”

¶26

5. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III,

¶27

appearing for the appellant State has submitted by referring to order dated 06.12.2023 that the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand has taken decision to pay compensation to the legal heirs/near relatives of the deceased under-trial prisoners, such decision has been taken on record, as would be evident from the aforesaid order.

¶28

6. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that since the decision has already been taken by the State on 13.10.2023 and 07.11.2023, as would be evident from the order dated 06.12.2023, then nothing remains to be decided in the instant appeal.

¶29

3

¶30

7. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement so recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 06.12.2023 whereby and whereunder the decision has already been taken to pay compensation to the legal heirs/near relatives of the deceased under-trial prisoners, for ready reference, the order dated 06.12.2023 is being quoted hereunder as :-

¶31

“ Order No.09/Dated: 6^th December 2023

¶32

Mr. Gaurav Raj, the learned State counsel tenders a copy of the communications dated 13^th October 2023 and 7^th November 2023 which disclosed that a decision has been taken to pay compensation to the legal heirs/near relatives of the deceased under-trial prisoners.

¶33

Taken on record.

¶34

On the request of the learned State counsel, post this matter on 12^th January 2024.”

¶35

8. From the aforesaid order it is evident that the State has already taken decision to make payment of compensation in the light of the order of the learned writ court.

¶36

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶37

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶38

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶39

Birendra/

¶40

4

The State of Jharkhand v. Manti Devi Alias Manti Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand v. Manti Devi Alias Manti Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Dgm Law Shri a K Upadhyay Vs Ganga Sagar Yadav

Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Dgm Law Shri a K Upadhyay Vs Biranchi Prasad Singh

Prema Dungdung Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Pratibha Rai Vs State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

Baban Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Thr Arun Kumar Srivastava Vs Rukaiya Khatoon