Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010040742022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/11/2022 KARIM ALI AND ANR S/O- DHANIMAMUD SHEIKH, R/O- BHANDARA, PART V, P.O- BHANDARA, P.S- MANIKPUR, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783390 2: JAMELA BIBI W/O- KARIM ALI R/O- BHANDARA PART V P.O- BHANDARA P.S- MANIKPUR DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78339 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GHY- 7 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIRANG DISTRICT AT KAJALGAON DIST- CHIRANG BTR Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM 4:THE OFFFICER IN CHARGE BIJNI POLICE STATION DIST- CHIRANG BTR ASSAM 5:RANJIT RAJKHOWA INSPECTOR OF POLICE CUM THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF BIJNI POLICE STATION CASE NO 299/2021 P.O AND P.S- BIJNI DIST- CHIRANG BTR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MS. M BEGUM,MR S H MAHMUD,MS. M BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 05.12.2025 (Kalyan Rai Surana, J) Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate along with Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Although one Ranjit Rajkhowa, the then Inspector of Police, was arrayed as respondent no. 5 by order dated 25.03.2022, this Court has issued notice only on the respondent nos. 1 to 5. Accordingly, there is no notice has been issued to respondent no. 5, it would be appropriate to struck off the name of respondent Page No.# 3/7 no. 5 from the arrayed of the parties. However, it may be stated that a show- cause report dated 20.04.2022, has been sent by the said respondent no. 5, which contains para wise comments. The same has been received by this Court on 21.04.2022 and the same is available in the records. As the same is not in form of an affidavit, the same stands expunged from the record. 3. The prayers made in this writ petition are three-fold: (i) to declare the police encounter of Khalek Ali, son of the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional; (ii) to fix the responsibility upon the police personnel, who are directly involved in the so-called encounter of Khaled Ali @ Abdul Khalek on 07.07.2021, and to start appropriate legal action against the police officers; (iii) to provide the compensation to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) to the petitioners. 4. Having noticed that there is no prayer in this writ petition for ordering a judicial enquiry and moreover as this Court in a writ petition may not have jurisdiction to record evidence, on a query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he would press a third prayer for awarding of compensation to the petitioners owing to death of their son Khaled Ali @ Abdul Khalek. 5. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that in order to investigate the death of one Yad Ali, for which Bijni PS Case No. 299/2021 was registered, the Page No.# 4/7 police personnel had arrested the son of the petitioner on 07.07.2021, during the day time. At about 12:00 mid-night, he was taken to the place of occurrence and thereafter, the police have alleged that the son of the petitioner had snatched the service pistol of the then Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Bijni and tried to escape and he did not surrender despite warning, and moreover, the son of the petitioner pointed the service pistol towards the police. Accordingly, for self-defence and to recover the government property, the police personnel resorted to controlled firing at the non-vital organ. Consequent upon receiving bullet injuries, the son of the petitioner was evacuated to the nearest medical centre at Bhetagaon CHC, Bijni for treatment. However, the attending doctors declared the son of the petitioner to have been brought dead. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the police projection and has submitted that when the son of the petitioner was accompanied with many armed police personnel, it would be unthinkable that the son of the petitioner, whose hand was tied with rope and/or handcuffed, would try to snatch police pistol and try to shoot at the police personnel. 7. Be that as it may, we find from the previous orders that in the absence of any prayer, neither the post mortem report nor the inquest report have been called for. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the third prayer in the writ petition, the matter has been taken up in the absence of the said vital documents. 8. From the nature of pleadings made in the writ petition and the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 on 18.05.2022 and 19.09.2022, the Page No.# 5/7 Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the son of the petitioners was taken into custody on 06.07.2021 and that in the intervening night of 06.07.2021 and the morning of 07.07.2021, the son of the petitioner received bullet injuries and he was brought dead at the Bhetagaon CHC Hospital. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the son of the petitioner was in police custody when he had died due to police action. 9. It may be appropriate to mention at this stage that with regard to the issue of liberty of citizens, the Court has to place reliance on the facts and evidence on record. Therefore, it is not open to this Court to draw adverse presumption against any police personnel without an enquiry or material against such police personnel. Nonetheless, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has the competence to take note of the fact that the son of the petitioner, namely, Khaled Ali @ Abdul Khalek had died in police action in the intervening night of 6th & 7th July, 2021. Accordingly, the Court would be inclined to take note of the State Government notification No. HMB.400415/40 dated 27.12.2024 issued by the Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department by virtue of which due to death on account of police action and/or death in police custody, the next of kin of the deceased would be entitled to compensation in view of the violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to direct the State Government, through the Home and Political Department to pay a monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the petitioners, namely, (1) Karim Ali and (2) Jamela Bibi, being the next of the kin of the deceased Khaled Ali @ Page No.# 6/7 Abdul Khalek in the following manner: (a) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each be converted into two fixed deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each for a period, tenure of 5 years in the name of petitioners no. (1) Karim Ali and (2) Jamela Bibi. (b) The balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) shall be released equally to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 directly in their bank accounts. 11. We direct the petitioners to provide their bank accounts and particulars to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home and Political Department while forwarding a certified copy of this order before said authority for providing compensation. 12. Upon receipt of above, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department shall verify the identity of the petitioners and on being satisfied, make disbursal of monetary compensation in the manner as indicated above. 13. It is made clear that the award of this compensation is palliative in nature, which does not preclude the right of the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum/Court in the event the fact of the compensation is not appropriate, or to express their protest against case closure report, which shall be done in such manner as the petitioners may be so advised. It is made clear that in the event any higher compensation is paid, the said amount would be adjustable against Page No.# 7/7 the palliative compensation awarded by virtue of this order. 14. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant