DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The prayers in the writ petition at the final hearing stage is limited to a claim for compensation for custodial death.
(2.) Relying upon (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors.) learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, since the death of the accused, who was the husband of the petitioner had occurred in the custody of the police, the State ought to grant compensation for such custodial death keeping aside the fact that the death may have occurred by self destruction or otherwise. He submits that, the issue of the cause of death is pending in an appropriate criminal proceeding, the Writ Court need not enter into that arena. However, since death of the accused had occurred in the custody of the police, he submits that, appropriate compensation should be granted. On the question as to the quantum of compensation, he submits that, the writ petitioner is the widow of the accused. The accused has left behind two children apart from the petitioner. These factors need be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding the quantum of compensation to be paid for the custodial death.
(3.) Learned advocate for the State refers to the affidavit-in-opposition and submits that, the accused was taken into custody on February 15, 2015. He draws the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition and submits that, the affidavit-in-opposition gives detailed narration of the incidents happening after the accused was taken into custody. He submits that, the accused was found at the toilet of the male lockup in a partially hanging position. He refers to (2009) 11 SCC 376 (Dalbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) and submits that, since the criminal proceeding with regard to the death of the accused is pending consideration, the Court should not consider the prayer for compensation at this stage by way of a writ petition.;