Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010276602018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8771/2018 MINATI RAY W/O. MOHAN RAY, R/O. VILL. NO.1 NACHONKHUTI, P.O. BILASHPUR, P.S. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O. P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783385. 4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE BONGAIGAON P.O. P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783385. 5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BONGAIGAON POLICE STATION P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783385. Page No.# 2/11 6:THE IN CHARGE BIDYAPUR POLICE OUTPOST BIDYAPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783372. 7:DIPAK SAIKIA (THE THEN IN CHARGE OF BIDYAPUR POLICE OUTPOST) PRESENTLY POSTED AT NORTH SALMARA POLICE STATION P.O. NORTH SALMORA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM-783383. 8:SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSA Advocate for the petitioner : Shri K. Kalita, Adv. Advocate for the respondents : Shri D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Adv, Assam : Ms. S. Sharma, SC, Health Deptt. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date on which judgment is reserved : 21.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 24-06-2026 (Pranjal Das, J) Page No.# 3/11 Heard Shri K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State and Ms. S. Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the Health Department. 2. Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Smti Minati Ray, who is stated to be the mother of one Shri Chandicharan Ray, has filed the instant writ petition seeking compensation for the violation of their fundamental rights owing to custodial violence inflicted upon her above named son by the Police from Bidyapur Police Outpost under Bongaigaon P.S. 3. The facts in brief contended by the petitioner are that - with regard to an incident of murder at Nachankuti village under the said Bidyapur Police Outpost of Bongaigaon PS, an FIR was lodged on 22.02.2016, resulting in the registration of Bongaigaon P.S case no. 116/2016 U/s 302 IPC. It is stated that on 27.02.2016, two accused persons were arrested by the police and sent for remand before the CJM, Bongaigaon. It is stated that on 29.02.2016, Shri Chandicharan Ray, the minor son of the petitioner was picked up by the I/C, Bidyapur Police Outpost on suspicion and subjected to custodial violence. That, on 03.03.2016, the petitioner’s son was admitted in Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and after his treatment, on 07.03.2016, he was diagnosed as suffering from soft tissue injuries due to such custodial violence. It is stated by the petitioner that due to the police atrocities, the petitioner’s son has been suffering and his academic career has also been jeopardized. That, on 06.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a written representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon for compensation; but as no such relief was forthcoming, the instant writ petition was filed. Page No.# 4/11 4. The petitioner has annexed various documents along with the writ petition. 5. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 (Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon). It is stated in para 4 of the affidavit that as per GDE No. 425 dated 25.02.2016 and GDE No. 426 dated 25.02.2016 of Bidyapur Outpost, the respondent no. 7, Shri. Dipak Saikia, who was the then I/c of Bidyapur Outpost, had brought Shri Chandicharan Ray, son of the petitioner to the Outpost on 25.02.2016 for interrogation in connection with the aforesaid murder case. On 26.02.2016, at about 10 am, he was handed over to his father, Shri Mohan Ray after holding medical examination at Bidyapur CHC vide Bidyapur OP GDE No. 438 dated 26.02.2016. Subsequently, the Bongaigaon PS case no. 116/2016 pertaining to alleged murder was chargesheeted and 2 accused(s) namely, Shri. Malin Adhikary and Shri Uddhab Ray were arrested. In para 5 of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.4, though it was admitted that the petitioner’s son was brought to the Outpost on 25.02.2016, but it was denied in the affidavit that he was subjected to any custodial violence. 6. The writ petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply to the above referred affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon). It is stated that the respondent no. 4 was trying to cover up the wrong doings of the respondent no. 7 (the then I/c of Bidyapur Police Outpost under Bongaigaon PS). In para 7 of the reply, the petitioner stated that the respondent no. 4 overlooked the responsibilities of the police towards a juvenile and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. 7. The respondent no. 7 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. He also admitted in para 4 of the affidavit that in connection with Bongaigaon PS case No. 116/2016, under section 302 IPC, the petitioner’s son namely, Chandicharan Ray, was taken to Bidyapyur Police Outpost 25.02.2016 at about 8:30 pm for Page No.# 5/11 interrogation; next morning on 26.02.2016, at 10 am, he was allowed to go home by giving his custody to his father, Mohan Ray, in good health vide GDE No. 438 dated 26.02.2016. The respondent no. 7 denied the allegations of custodial violence. It has been denied in the affidavit that the police had taken the petitioner’s son to the hospital on 03.03.2016 and reiterated that on 26.02.2016, the petitioner’s husband had taken Zimma of his son (the alleged victim). The aforesaid GDE No. 438 dated 26.02.2016 has been annexed with the writ petition and we have perused the same. 8. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 7 as well. It was stated in para 4 that the petitioner’s son was picked up on 25.02.2016 and detained in police custody for 3 (three) days and subjected to custodial violence and later taken to Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 03.03.2016 and discharged with the observation of having soft tissue injuries, due to the alleged assault by the police and given conservative treatment. The petitioner in the said reply contested the denial of the respondent no. 7 about commission of any custodial violence. 9. Another additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 (Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon) bringing on record certain medical records in terms of the orders dated 02.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, of this Court. 10. Even with regard to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4, the writ petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Public Law Remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India submits that the materials have clearly proved that the petitioner’s son was subjected to custodial violence and he should be suitably compensated in law. Page No.# 6/11 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State respondents submitted that in terms of the order of this Court, the petitioner’s son (alleged victim) has already been given compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) in terms of the Notification No. PLA.524/2015/pt/190(ECF)-38361 dated 01.02.2019. Vide the said notification, the Government of Assam had amended the Schedule of the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012. In terms of serial No. 3, pertaining to minor victim of physical abuse, the compensation amount is quantified at minimum Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) and maximum Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs). 13. We have perused the pleadings, the relevant documents and considered the submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides. 14. Vide order dated 04.04.2023, passed by this Court, the Original GD book of the relevant period was called for from the Bidyapyur Police Outpost under Bongaigaon PS, and we have perused the relevant GDE No. 425dated 25.02.2016 and GDE No. 426dated 25.02.2016. The petitioner's side has claimed and contended that the victim was a minor child about 16 years at the time of alleged incident of custodial violence. The respondent side has not been able to dispel the contention that the petitioner's son was a minor at the relevant time. 15. Upon perusing the materials on record, including the original GDE of the relevant period - it is clear that the petitioner's son was brought to the police station on 25.02.2016 in connection with Bongaigaon PS case no. 116/2016. Vide order dated 02.06.2023, this Court had directed constitution of a Medical board for examination of the petitioner’s son, and accordingly, the same was constituted and the petitioner was also examined, including his mental capacities for work, etc. Page No.# 7/11 16. The respondent no. 7 also appeared personally before this Court during the proceeding, including on 12.05.2023 and as mentioned in that order, it was revealed from him that the petitioner’s son, Chandicharan Ray, was in police custody for 18.5 hours, but it was denied by the respondent no. 7 that any custodial violence was committed upon him. However, the order dated 12.05.2023 noticed that the medical report of 7 days later revealed soft tissue injuries, 5 in number, which was available from the original medical reports produced by the Health department of the Government of Assam. 17. We have also perused those medical reports. 18. This Court upon perusing those materials came to the finding, as reflected in the order dated 12.05.2023 - that serious injuries were inflicted upon the petitioner’s son, and if the denial of the respondent no. 7 is to be accepted, then it has to be believed that such injuries were inflicted by some other person after his release from custody and before being taken to the hospital. In these circumstances, it was directed that a police case be registered in Bongaigaon PS regarding the inflicting of injuries upon the petitioner’s son, Chandicharan Ray, and the Officer-in-Charge of Bongaigaon PS was directed to conduct thorough investigation and submit a report. The Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon was also directed to personally supervise the investigation. 19. Pursuant to the said direction, the Bongaigaon PS case no. 204/2023 was registered under section 342/323 IPC on 16.05.2023, and it was investigated into, and at the time of culmination of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Dipak Saikia, the then I/C of Bidyapyur Police Outpost under Bongaigaon PS - who is the respondent no. 7 in this proceeding. The chargesheet is vide CS no. 217/2023 dated 29.08.2023 under section 342/323 IPC, read with, section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Protection Act, 2015. Page No.# 8/11 20. In the context of the police case being chargesheeted, it would be a question of trial as to - whether it is proved that the respondent no. 7 was responsible for committing assault upon the petitioner’s son by way of custodial violence and causing injuries thereof, and whether he was also responsible for wrongfully confining him. 21. Nevertheless, on the basis of the materials available so far, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner's son, Chandicharan Ray, fulfilled the criteria of - minor victim of physical abuse - mentioned against serial no. 3 of the aforementioned notification dated 01.02.2019, regarding victim compensation. 22. We cannot say much about the custodial violence, for not causing any prejudice to the trial against respondent no. 7, and the same would be governed by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 23. However, from the materials on record, including the statement on affidavit of the respondent no. 4, about custodial detention of the petitioner’s son, and also the materials on the GDE book and medical documents –it can be said that the materials,prima facie, clearly indicate that the petitioner's son, stated to be a minor, was detained in police custody and subjected to custodial violence. 24. It is well settled that the compensation for violation of fundamental rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India due to illegal acts of officials of the State - is an important public law remedy. One of the first cases in this regard is the landmark decision in the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746. The relevant paragraph 34 of that milestone decision may be reproduced herein below:- “34.The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private Page No.# 9/11 law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court molds the relief by granting "compensation" in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages' awarded against the wrong doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and persecute the offender under the penal law.” 25. As already mentioned, this Court by way of interim relief had directed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) and from the materials on record, it is clear that the same has already been received by the petitioner’s side. Upon going back to the notification dated 01.02.2019, enhancing the amounts under Assam Victim Compensation Scheme - we are of the opinion that as the minor has suffered physical abuse in circumstances indicative of custodial violence, therefore, he should be given the maximum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs). 26. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is Ex Facie made out. Therefore in exercise of the powers granted under Article 226, r/w the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme Page No.# 10/11 - we direct that the petitioner’s son, Chandicharan Ray, would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs). As the petitioner's side has already received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) as indicated by order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Registrar General of this Court - the victim would be liable to receive additional Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs). The said amount shall be deposited by the respondent no. 1 before the Registry of this Court within a period of 1 month from the date of this order. Thereafter, the same can be released after usual verification. 27. Though in terms of the order of this Court, the direction for registration of the criminal case was complied with and the said case has also resulted in a chargesheet - we also take note of the fact that the victim in question was a minor. It is well settled by the juvenile law jurisprudence, that a minor cannot be arrested nor he can be kept in police custody; not to talk of inflicting custodial violence. It also cannot be overlooked that the victim in the instant matter was not even an accused of the case in which he was picked up; though even an accused has a right not to be inflicted with custodial violence. 28. Considering the above aspect of the matter, and prima facie conduct of a member of the police force, an institution which occupies a very significant position in society - it would be desirable that the Director General of Police, Assam, may exercise his wise discretion as to whether the respondent no. 7, Shri Dipak Saikia, the then I/c Bidyapyur Police Outpost (under Bongaigaon PS) - needs to be proceeded with departmentally also, so as to uphold the prestige and dignity of a vital institution like the Police. 29. A copy of this judgment and order shall be furnished to the learned Government Advocate, Assam for information and needful. A copy of this judgment and order shall also be sent to the Director General of Police, Assam Page No.# 11/11 for information and needful, if any. 30. Return the original GDE Book to the Bongaigaon PS, with intimation to the learned Senior Government Advocate. 31. The instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant