Md. JahidversusThe State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3077 of 2025
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura
     ======================================================
     Md. Jahid (Minor) under the guardianship of cousin brother Mohammad Navi
     Hussain/Parokar, Son of Md. Mukhtar, Resident of Village Sarpanch Ward
     No.- 08, P.S.- Puraini, District - Madhepura, Pincode - 852210
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.    The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Government of
      Bihar, Patna. Bihar
2.    The Director, Prosecution, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
                                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Shashwat Kumar, Advocate
                                       Mr. Aman Alam, Advocate
                                       Mr. Amarnath Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to A.G.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

      Date : 09-01-2026


                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

     AC to AG for the State of Bihar.

                     2. Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in

     this case, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’), namely, Mr.

     Rizwan Ahmad is present with the records.

                     3. This Court has also interacted with him in order to

     elicit certain material information. The I.O. has produced the

     case diary of this case and this Court has gone through the same

     with the assistance of learned AC to AG.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           2/14




                    4. The present writ application has been filed in the

       nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the

       petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents. It is the

       case of the petitioner that the I.O. in this case has arrested the

       petitioner in complete disregard to the powers of arrest and

       without following the established procedure of law. The

       petitioner alleges gross violation of his fundamental right as

       embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

                    5. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

             One Khushboo Praveen wife of Md. Amzad, resident of

       village Sapardah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhepura

       lodged a first information report giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case

       No. 128 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025 registered under Sections

       126(2), 115(2), 76, 308(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya

       Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS,

       2023’). She alleged that in connection with a land dispute, a

       Panchayati was held with the intervention of the co-villagers, the

       accused persons called the prosecution side to participate in the

       said Panchayati but while the Panchayati was going on, the 14

       named accused including this petitioner who are all the co-

       villagers of the informant assaulted the prosecution side. It was
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           3/14




       also alleged that the accused persons had taken away the silver

       chain and other ornaments.

                    6. In connection with the said occurrence, the

       petitioner’s mother also lodged a counter case giving rise to

       Puraini P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025. The said

       case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections

       191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 76, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352,

       351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.

                    7. During investigation of the Puraini P.S. Case No.

       128 of 2025, the I.O. found that there was no sufficient material

       to proceed against ten named accused persons including this

       petitioner. One accused, namely, Md. Naushad was arrested. The

       investigation was supervised by the Inspector and upon

       instructions, the I.O. filed a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet

       No. 235 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 in which ten accused

       including this petitioner were shown in Column No. 12 as not

       chargesheeted accused. In another words, they were not sent up

       for trial. A reading of the chargesheet which is on the record

       would show that the same was filed on the direction of the

       Senior Police officer, while the arrested accused Md. Naushad

       was chargesheeted, the investigation was kept open against three
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           4/14




       absconding accused, namely, (1) Md. Muktar, (2) Md. Zakir and

       (3) Md. Akhtar.

                    8. It appears that after about 25 days, the I.O. received

       a review note/supervision note from the office of the Deputy

       Inspector General of Police (in short ‘DIG’), Koshi Range,

       Saharsa. It is evident that the supervision note was recorded by

       the DIG on his own on the request of the informant who had

       visited the office of the DIG with an application complaining

       that the Inspector of Police had wrongly exonerated ten named

       accused persons. The DIG has simply recorded in his note the

       allegations and then taking note of the statements of the

       witnesses, he issued a direction to the I.O. to proceed with the

       investigation of the case assuming that the allegations are true

       against the accused persons. He directed the Superintendent of

       Police, Madhepura to ensure further action and arrest all the

       remaining accused persons expeditiously.

                    9. A perusal of the case diary would show that the

       supervision note of the DIG was incorporated in the case diary

       on 25.09.2025 whereafter the I.O. straightway proceeded to

       conduct raid on the house of the accused persons. The case diary

       does not show that after the supervision note of the DIG, any

       instruction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           5/14




       Madhepura. It does not show that the I.O., being fully aware of

       the fact that the ten accused persons have already been shown

       not sent up for trial, made any application in the court of learned

       Magistrate for permitting a further investigation. The I.O. could

       not lay his hand to any other material against the petitioner but

       on 23.10.2025, he arrested the present petitioner, described his

       age as 19 years and produced him before the court from where

       he was sent to jail. It appears that even at the time of his

       production before the learned Magistrate, the attention of the

       learned Magistrate was not drawn towards the fact that the

       petitioner was shown in the column of not chargesheeted

       accused in the chargesheet, therefore, once the chargesheet had

       been filed in the court, it was incumbent upon the I.O. to file an

       application seeking further investigation of the case if at all any

       material had come against the petitioner. Even the learned

       Magistrate did not look into these aspects of the matter and

       straightway in a mechanical manner sent the petitioner behind

       the bars.

                    10. The petitioner approached this Court by filing this

       writ application and informed this Court on 24.11.2025 in

       course of hearing that the petitioner is a juvenile as per his date

       of birth certificate i.e. the registration card of the Bihar School
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           6/14




       Examination Board showing his date of birth as 01.01.2010. The

       petitioner complained that despite the fact that he is a juvenile,

       the learned Magistrate did not assess his age at the time of

       sending him behind the bars and in complete breach of the

       provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

       Children) Act, 2015, the petitioner was languishing in jail. On

       24.11.2025, this Court noticed the submissions and asked the

       State to file a counter affidavit duly sworn by the I.O. who had

       effected the arrest of the petitioner. In the meantime, this Court

       observed that “it will be open to the Jurisdictional Magistrate to

       take corrective measures after considering the date of birth

       certificate of the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is

       aged below 18 years, it will be incumbent upon the

       Jurisdictional Magistrate to send him to the concerned Juvenile

       Justice Board for assessment of age and considering his date of

       birth certificate as per the Bihar School Examination Board, he

       would be kept in an observation home and not in jail with

       adults.”

                    11. This Court has been informed at this stage that, in

       fact, after coming to know the claim of the petitioner that he was

       a juvenile, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate had vide his
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           7/14




       order dated 21.11.2025 referred him for assessment of age to the

       Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura.

                    12. Be that as it may, the report subsequently received

       vide Letter No. 13 dated 07.01.2026 from the office of the

       Superintendent of Police, Madhepura shows that the petitioner

       has been declared juvenile aged about 15 years 06 months and

       08 days on the date of occurrence.

                    13. In the aforementioned factual background, a

       question has arisen for consideration in the present case as to

       how the petitioner could have been arrested on 23.10.2025 when

       he was not chargesheeted in the case and, in fact, in the

       Chargesheet No. 235, he was shown one amongst the ten

       accused persons who were not chargesheeted/sent up for trial.

       We have already taken note of the fact that during investigation,

       sufficient materials were not found against the petitioner to send

       him to trial and after the supervision note of the DIG, the I.O.

       had not collected any other and further material against the

       petitioner. All that he did after receipt of the supervision note of

       the DIG was that he conducted a raid and ultimately arrested the

       petitioner from his house on 23.10.2025.

                    14. Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State

       has submitted before this Court that, in fact, during his own
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           8/14




       interaction with the I.O. he could not satisfy himself with the

       kind of answers given to him and it appears on perusal of the

       records which have been placed before him by the I.O. that the

       sole reason for the arrest of the petitioner is the supervision note

       of the DIG, Koshi Range, Saharsa.

                    15. We ourselves obtained the case diary which has

       been brought by the I.O. and perused the same. We have found

       that after receipt of the supervision note from the DIG, Koshi

       Range, no instruction from the Superintendent of Police,

       Madhepura has been received/recorded in the case diary. The

       I.O. himself decided to arrest the accused-petitioner.

                    16. Learned AC to AG has submitted that in this case,

       the DIG, Koshi Range, Saharsa, if at all was of the view that the

       case requires further investigation, he should have directed the

       I.O. to file an appropriate application in the court of the learned

       Magistrate seeking permission because in this case, a

       chargesheet had already been filed and the court had taken

       cognizance thereof.

                    17. Learned AC to AG could not place before this

       Court any material to show that the I.O. had collected any other

       material to justify the arrest of the petitioner and/or that he could

       have, in the facts of the present case, effected arrest of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           9/14




       petitioner without obtaining permission from the court for

       further investigation.

                    18. In the entire facts and circumstances and the

       materials which have been brought before this Court, this Court

       is fully satisfied that the liberty of the petitioner in the present

       case has been curtailed and his Right to Life and Liberty has

       been violated by the act of the police officials. The direction of

       the DIG, Koshi Range to investigate the case assuming the

       allegations true is against the principles of presumption of

       innocence which is the Cardinal Principle of Criminal Law

       Jurisprudence. The I.O. proceeded to arrest the petitioner, a

       student aged below 16 years without there being any cogent

       material. He could not have done so in this case.

                    19. Even the learned Magistrate failed to protect the

       petitioner from his illegal arrest. Because of the misuse of power

       by the Investigating Agency and failure of the court to protect

       the right and liberty of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer

       by way of incarceration for over two and half months by now.

                    20. We have come to a conclusion that it is a case of

       unlawful arrest of the petitioner and in such a circumstance, this

       Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a mute

       spectator. There are catena of judgments of the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           10/14




       Supreme Court in which not only unlawful arrest of a citizen has

       been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but has also

       awarded adequate compensation for illegal arrest and unlawful

       detention of the petitioner.

                    21. Reference in this regard may be made to the

       judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati

       Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and

       Others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960. In the said case, the

       Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of

       contravention of fundamental rights of a citizen made the

       following observations:-

                                  “...... award of compensation in a proceeding
                                  under Article 32 by this court or by the High
                                  Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
                                  is a remedy available in public law, based on
                                  strict   liability     for   contravention   of
                                  fundamental rights to which the principle of
                                  sovereign immunity does not apply, even
                                  though it may be available as a defence in
                                  private law in an action based on tort.…”


                    22. In the case of Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs. State of

       Bihar and Others reported in 2025 (6) BLJ 52, this Court has

       observed in paragraphs ‘27’, ‘28’ and ‘29’ as under:-

                               “27. In the case of Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar
                                and Another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                          11/14




                                while dealing with a case of unlawful detention in
                                jail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
                                under:-
                                “...In these circumstances, the refusal of this court
                                to pass an order of compensation in favour of the
                                petitioner will be doing mere lipservice to his
                                fundamental right to liberty which the State
                                Government has so grossly violated.”
                               28. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma Vs.
                                Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
                                reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215, a
                                learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High
                                Court has reviewed the case laws on the subject
                                and upon finding that the petitioner was made to
                                suffer in the lockup for only half an hour, the
                                learned Single Judge directed for payment of
                                compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner
                                recoverable from the salaries of Respondent Nos.
                                4 and 5 who were the erring officials.
                               29. Having regard to the well settled law on the
                                subject, in the admitted facts of this case where
                                these police officials have contravened the
                                procedures and thereby caused injustice to
                                Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by keeping them in
                                police custody without any sanction of law, we
                                are of the considered opinion that Respondent
                                Nos. 9 and 11 both are entitled for a
                                compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
                                Lakh) each. The State shall be liable to pay
                                Rs.1,00,000/- to each of Respondent Nos. 9 and
                                11 within a period of 30 days from today and
                                recover the same from Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and
                                12 who have admitted the violation of the
                                fundamental rights of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11
                                by not complying with the established procedure
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                          12/14




                                of law. It is well-settled that for any misuse of
                                power by an officer of the State, if the State is
                                being saddled with cost or compensation, the
                                same be recovered from the erring officials.
                                Reference in this regard may be made to the
                                judgment of this Court in the case of K.K.
                                Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak Vs. Ravi
                                Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019
                                (1) PLJR 1051 which has attained finality as the
                                same has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble
                                Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019.”


                    23. In view of the admitted factual position and the law

       being clear on this issue, we direct that the petitioner shall be

       released forthwith by the Juvenile Justice Board from the

       observation home/children’s home and in this regard appropriate

       release order shall be issued by the Juvenile Justice Board,

       Madhepura forthwith.

                    24. For his unlawful arrest and detention, we direct the

       State to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as

       compensation. This amount, we are assessing, keeping in view that

       a young boy who is a juvenile at this stage has undergone physical

       and mental agony for two and half months by now. The State

       Government shall pay this amount to the petitioner within a period

       of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this

       order.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                          13/14




                    25. We find that the petitioner has been compelled to

       approach this Court by filing a writ application of Habeas Corpus.

       He/his family has incurred expenses in contesting the litigation

       which were imposed upon them due to misuse of power by the

       police official.

                    26. We, therefore, award a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

       Fifteen Thousand) to the petitioner which shall also be paid by the

       State within the same period.

                    27. It is well settled in law that when the State is saddled

       with cost and compensation because of misuse of power by an

       executive, such cost and compensation must be realized from the

       erring officials. Reference in this regard may be made to the

       judgment of this Court in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav

       Kumar Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported

       in 2019 (1) PLJR 1051 which was subject matter of challenge

       before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019,

       however, the same has not been interfered with and the view is

       based on the earlier views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which

       have been duly discussed.

                    28. We direct the competent authority/the Director

       General of Police, Bihar to institute an inquiry into the matter in

       administrative side, take a suitable view based on the materials
             Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                                       14/14




                    which would come in course of the inquiry proceeding and realize

                    the cost and the compensation amount from the erring officials.

                    The cost and compensation amount which will be paid to the

                    petitioner shall be realized from the erring officials after

                    completion of inquiry, within a period of six months from the date

                    of receipt/communication of a copy of this order.

                                 29. This writ application stands allowed to the extent

                    indicated hereinabove.

                                 30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

                    learned Principal District Judge, Madhepura, the Juvenile Justice

                    Board, Madhepura and the Director General of Police, Bihar for

                    compliance.



                                            (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)


                                                   (Ritesh Kumar, J)
lekhi/-Vinita/-
AFR/NAFR                  AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date            09.01.2026
Transmission Date         09.01.2026