- (1.) IN the writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers: (i) An appropriate writ, order or direction, holding the concerned respondents authorities guilty as due to their negligence and having violated the right to life, dignity and equality which ultimately led to death in judicial custody of late Basudeo Yadav; (ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to take suitable action against the negligent officials/employees of the respondents due to which late Basudeo Yadav lost his life. (iii) A further writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to pay exemplary compensation to the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that the husband while in custody of the respondents had lost his life. (iv) Any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order (s) be passed or direction(s) be made as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
(2.) THE brief facts stated in the writ petition are summarized thus; The husband of the petitioner namely, late Basudeo Yadav was appointed as constable in the Jharkhand police in the month of April, 2005. While on duty, the husband of the petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2011 and he was sent to judicial custody in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 492 of 2011 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.02.2012. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner was implicated in several other cases being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 455 of 2010, Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 424 of 2011, Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 427 of 2011, Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 491 of 2011, Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 494 of 2011, Chas P.S. Case No. 215 of 2011 and Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 438 of 2011, all registered for various offences including offences under Sections 419, 420, 379, 392 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner in which the order of dismissal from service was passed on 30.04.2012. It is stated that while in judicial custody, the husband of the petitioner suffered depression on account of his false implication in criminal cases and at the request of the jail authorities, he was sent for treatment to the RINPAS, Ranchi. The husband of the petitioner was admitted in RINPAS, Ranchi on 17.04.2012 where two constables namely, Dinanath Pandey and Sanjay Kumar Singh were deputed for custody of the husband of the petitioner. On 29.06.2012 when both the constables were absent from duty, the husband of the petitioner escaped from hospital and Kanke P.S. Case No. 108 of 2012 was registered under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code on 29.06.2012 in this connection. The dead body of the husband of the petitioner was found on the railway track at Bokaro on 29.06.2012. An U.D. Case No. 06 of 2012 was registered on 30.06.2012. On account of their negligence, both the constables were placed under suspension vide order dated 05.07.2012. It is stated that it is a matter of record that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from "psychotic depression" and after the death of her husband, the petitioner found it difficult to maintain herself and her two children. It is stated that the State is under constitutional and legal obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect life and liberty of every inmate in prison. The husband of the petitioner died in lawful judicial custody due to negligence on the part of the respondents and their employees and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the petitioner.
(3.) WHEN the matter was listed on 06.01.2015, I.A. No. 8129 of 2013 was pressed which was allowed and the typographical error in the Memo of parties, that is, description of respondent no. 4 was permitted to be corrected. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of postmortem examination report of the deceased, which has been placed on record with the supplementary affidavit dated 23.01.2015. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.;