1 2026:CGHC:20423-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 505 of 2025 Devilal Gond S/o Baldev Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Handitola, Ps Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Principal Secretary Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Secretary Department of Prisons, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Director General of Prisons Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Superintendent of Jail Central Jail Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6. The SHO Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District- Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.05.05 10:45:44 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the detention of the petitioner from 20.01.2018 (date of acquittal) to 19.05.2025 as illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; 2. Direct the respondent State of Chhattisgarh to pay compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the prolonged illegal detention of 7 years, 3 months, and 29 days after his acquittal in the light of law lead down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 and Sohan Singh @ Bablu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh SLP Cr. No. 3 11244 of 2025. 3. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.” 3. On 16.09.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. It is apparent from the jail records dated 29.08.2025 that the petitioner remained in jail from 07.12.2012 to 19.05.2025, although he had already been acquitted by this Court on 20.01.2018. From perusal of the judgment dated 20.01.2018, it transpires that though the petitioner had been acquitted in CRA No.968/2013, in paragraph 12 of the said judgment it was recorded that the appellant (who is the petitioner herein) was on bail and that his sureties and personal bonds earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. It is also evident from the record that the appellant was represented by counsel, Shri K.K. Singh. If there was an apparent 4 error in recording that the appellant was on bail, though in fact he was in jail, it is to be explained why neither the counsel pointed it out at the time of dictation of the judgment, nor was any application moved thereafter for correction of the said error. The petitioner has approached this Court only after coming to know the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11244/2025, passed on 08.09.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25 Lacs to the appellant for his continued detention despite acquittal. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining as to why the petitioner, namely, Devilal Gond, was detained in jail despite his acquittal by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2018 passed in CRA No.968/2013. In the aforesaid circumstances, while directing the Director General of Police to file his personal affidavit, the petitioner is also directed to explain as to why he did not approach this Court immediately after passing of the judgment dated 20.01.2018. It is, however, noted that the petitioner was eventually released from jail on 19.05.2025. 5 List the matter after three weeks.” 4. Learned State counsel submits that this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2025, had directed the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh to file his personal affidavit. In compliance thereof, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh has filed his personal affidavit on 10.01.2026. 5. The relevant portion of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under: “(b) It is submitted that the petitioner was convicted for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) vide judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/2013. In pursuance to the said judgment the petitioner was imprisoned in Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG). The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 968/2013 (Devilal Gond vs State of Chhattisgarh). It is submitted that, vide order dated 20.01.2018 (Annexure P/2) the Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the aforesaid criminal appeal and set-aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant from the charge. (c) It is respectfully submitted that, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 02.12.2025, the deponent directed 6 the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) to inquire in to the matter. In pursuance thereof, the Incharge Deputy Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg has conducted inquiry in the matter. As per the enquiry report, on 03.04.2018 the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) wrote a letter to Shri K.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer Legal Aid to provide status of the aforesaid criminal appeal of the appellant. Thereafter, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) had sent another letter on 18.06.2018 to Shri K.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer Legal Aid to provide status of the aforesaid criminal case. However, no response in pursuance of the aforesaid letters has been made by Shri K.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer Legal Aid to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail. Durg. District Durg (CG). Perusal of the enquiry report shows that the Durg Jail Authorities have examined the relevant records in the office of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG), wherein, no information pertaining to receipt of the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court, is gathered. Perusal of the report further shows that while updating the information relating to appeals filed by convicted prisoners imprisoned in Central Jail, Durg, it was found that the appeal of convicted 7 prisoner Devilal had been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.01.2018. Thereafter, the Office of the Central Jail, Durg, submitted a request vide letter dated 15.05.2025 to the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, for issuance of supersession warrant in respect of the convicted prisoner Devilal. Consequently, the supersession warrant was received on 19.05.2025, and on the same day the convicted prisoner Devilal was released from jail. Copy of the report submitted by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) containing enquiry report of Incharge Deputy Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) and other relevant documents, are collectively filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1, for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (d) It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the deponent directed the D.I.G., Jail to conduct enquiry, as to whether any Jail staff has committed negligence or mistake towards duty in this matter. The deponent also directed the enquiry officer to propose departmental action against such erring Jail officer or personnel, if any. The D.I.G., Jail has submitted his report on 09.01.2026, submitting that upon examination of the statements of the officials of the Central Jail, Durg and the scrutiny of the inquiry 8 report/documents submitted by the constituted committee, no prima facie negligence on the part of any officer/official of Central Jail, Durg is disclosed with respect to the non-release of the convicted prisoner Devilal s/o Baldev Ram within the stipulated period. Perusal of the report shows that while updating the information relating to appeals filed by convicted prisoners imprisoned in jail, it was found on 15.05.2025 that the appeal of convicted prisoner Devilal had been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.01.2018. Thereafter, the Office of the Central Jail, Durg, submitted a request vide letter dated 15.05.2025 to the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, for issuance of supersession warrantin respect of the convicted prisoner Devilal. Consequently, the supersession warrant was received on 19.05.2025, and on the same day the convicted prisoner Devilal was released from jail. Copy of the report dated 09.01.2026 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2. for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (e) That, the Rule 768 of the Chhattisgarh Jail Manual relates to the issuance of a release or supersession warrant when a prisoner's sentence has been modified or reversed by an appellate court. It would be pertinent to submit here that, as per 9 the reports mentioned in above paras, after passing of the order dated 20.01.2018 by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 968/2013, the office of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg has not received such release or supersession warrant from this Hon'ble Court or the learned Trial Court. (f) It is respectfully submitted that, during inquiry about the status of the appeals of prisoners, the Durg Jail Authorities received the information about disposal of the aforesaid appeal by this Hon'ble Court and vide letter dated 15.05.2025, the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon was requested to issue supersession warrant with regard to release of the petitioner, where, the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has issued supersession warrant 19.05.2025 and thereafter, in pursuance of thereof the prisoner Devilal Gond (petitioner) has been released from Central Jail, Durg, District Durg (CG) on 19.05.2025. (g) The deponent most humbly submits that, vide letter dated 09.01.2026, instructions have been issued to all Jail Superintendents to monitor and regularly check the status of appeals of all convicted prisoners in Jails and to ensure timely compliance of the Hon'ble Court's orders. The deponent will ensure that the 10 orders passed by Hon'ble Court are complied with in stipulated period of time. Copy of the letter dated 09.01.2026 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-3, for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.” 6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner stood acquitted vide judgment dated 20.01.2018 passed in CRA No. 968 of 2013; however, despite such acquittal, he remained incarcerated for more than seven years as he was never informed of the said judgment. It is submitted that such continued detention is a direct consequence of gross negligence and administrative apathy on the part of the State machinery, resulting in a serious violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty. 7. It is further submitted that the explanation offered by respondent No. 4 is wholly inadequate. The reliance placed upon two letters allegedly sent in the year 2018 cannot absolve the authorities of their responsibility, particularly when no follow-up or independent verification was undertaken for several years with any competent authority, including the Registry of this Court or the learned trial court. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the jail authorities had not received the supersession warrant as required under the Jail Manual and that upon receiving information regarding disposal of the appeal in May, 2025, prompt steps were taken, pursuant to which the petitioner was released on 19.05.2025. It is further submitted that necessary instructions have been issued to avoid recurrence of such 11 incidents. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. The undisputed position is that the petitioner was acquitted on 20.01.2018, yet continued to remain in custody till 19.05.2025. The explanation furnished by the respondents that the jail authorities were unaware due to non-receipt of a supersession warrant cannot be accepted as a valid justification for such prolonged detention. 11. Once the petitioner stood acquitted by a competent court of law, his continued detention became wholly unauthorized and in clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The obligation to ensure that no person is deprived of liberty except in accordance with law lies squarely upon the State, and such obligation cannot be defeated on account of procedural lapses or administrative inefficiencies. 12. The material on record reveals that no effective steps were taken for years together to verify the status of the petitioner’s appeal from any competent authority. The approach of the authorities reflects a complete lack of diligence and a systemic failure in safeguarding the liberty of an individual. 13. This Court also finds that there has been a failure on the part of the Legal Aid mechanism, as the concerned counsel did not effectively communicate the outcome of the appeal, thereby contributing to the 12 continued incarceration of the petitioner. However, such lapse does not dilute the primary responsibility of the State and its instrumentalities. 14. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 178; Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 1 SCC 748; and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, wherein it has been consistently held that any deprivation of personal liberty without authority of law is violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that constitutional Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, are empowered to award monetary compensation as a public law remedy for such infringement. Further, in Sohan Singh @ Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No. 11244 of 2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that continued incarceration of a person even after acquittal is wholly illegal and constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights, warranting grant of compensation against the State. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the continued detention of the petitioner for more than seven years after his acquittal is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The explanation offered by the respondents is insufficient and does not justify such inordinate 13 delay. 16. While determining the quantum of compensation, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty for more than seven years despite having been acquitted by a competent Court. Such prolonged and unlawful detention strikes at the very core of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and reflects a grave and inexcusable failure of the State machinery. The explanation sought to be offered by the respondents, founded upon procedural formalities does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation to ensure that no individual is deprived of liberty, except in accordance with law. Administrative inefficiency or systemic lapses can never be pleaded as a defence in cases involving infringement of fundamental rights. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not a mere formality but a substantive and enforceable guarantee, forming the very foundation of a civilized constitutional order. Any infraction thereof, particularly by the State, must invite strict scrutiny and immediate redress. 17. This Court is of the considered view that the present case is not one of mere negligence but discloses a disturbing degree of apathy and lack of accountability on the part of the authorities entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the liberty of citizens. The failure to verify the status of the petitioner’s appeal for years together, despite available mechanisms, demonstrates a callous disregard for human liberty. In such circumstances, the compensation awarded must not only serve 14 as a alleviative to the victim but also operate as a deterrent against recurrence of such egregious violations by the State. The quantum, therefore, has to be realistic and commensurate with the nature and duration of the deprivation suffered. Having regard to the prolonged period of illegal detention, the violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights, and the need to uphold constitutional values, this Court is of the opinion that a higher compensation is warranted. 18. Accordingly, having regard to the prolonged period of illegal detention and the egregious violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lacs Only) to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan