Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners seek an initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings in respect of the custodial death of the son of the fist petitioner, and compensation.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the son of the first petitioner was taken into custody on February 28, 2015 in respect of a case of cheating. The first petitioner, who is the mother of the detainee, was not informed about the detention immediately on the arrest. The first petitioner was informed about the custody for the first time only on March 4, 2015. She was informed that her son was ill, and admitted to a primary health center. At around 10 P.M. in the night, she had received a call from the police informing her that her son was shifted to Chittaranjan Hospital at Park Circus as according to the police, the medical condition of the son of the first petitioner had deteriorated. The first petitioner had rushed to the hospital on receipt of such information, and found her son in critical condition. On March 5, 2015, the son of the first petitioner was declared dead. The second petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the various authorities for justice.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the death of the son of the first petitioner having occurred in the custody of the police authorities, it is for the police authorities to explain the causes of such death, appropriately. The death of the son of the first petitioner has not been explained by the police authorities even in the affidavit filed. He relies upon (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal with Ashok K. Johri v. State of U.P., 1997 AIR(SC) 610) and submits that, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for death of the accused in custody. He relies upon (Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2013 14 SCC 290) for the same proposition.;