2026:JHHC:4394 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7376 of 2017 --------- Smt. Nazma Bibi w/o Late Md. Azad Khan, son of Zalim Khan, Resident of – Village- Arahara, P.O. and P.S.-Herhanz, District- Latehar. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Jharkhand Sachiwalaya, P.O. and P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Jharkhand Sachiwalaya, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Jharkhand Sachiwalaya, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Division, P.O.- GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Division, P.O. - GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, Dist. Latehar. 7. Superintendent of Police, P.O. and P.S.-Latehar, District- Latehar. 8. Officer Incharge, Balumath Police Station, P.O. and P.S. - Balumath, District - Latehar, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Allam, Sr.Advocate M/s. Asfia Sultana, Sushmita Kumari, Faisal Allam, Advocates For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I --------- C.A.V. ON: 27.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 16/02/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for following reliefs: a) For a direction against the respondents to make payments of Rs.25 Lacs. to the dependent of the deceased- Imteyaz Kha, son of Azad Kha, Resident of - Village Arhara, P.S. - herhanj, District - Latehar, who was killed by the miscreants against whom Balumath P.S. Case No. 42/2016 was registered on 18.03.2016, under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the information given by one Md. 2026:JHHC:4394 2 Nezamuddin, against accused Binod Prajapati and several other unknown, who had brutally killed the son of the petitioner namely Imteyaz Khan and hanged his body on the tree, which was also highlighted by all the National and International news papers and electronic media as the act itself was very heinous and liable to be adequately compensated. (b) Respondents be further directed to give employment to one of the dependants on the wish/ option of the petitioner, either to the brother of the deceased namely Md. Firoz Khan (son of the deceased), who is a Class-VIII passed or at the option of the family against the Grade-IV under post the Government in order to take care of livelihood of the bereaved family. (c) In view of several Judgments delivered by this Hon'ble Court in naxal killings and killing of other innocent persons, this Hon'ble Court as well as Supreme Court has passed several directions including the heavy compensation of Rs.10 Lacs. and above to the dependants of innocent deceased, who had been killed by known or unknown miscreants and to whom the Government could not protect and could not provide protection and life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So, it is first and foremost legal bounden duty of the Government to protect life and liberty of its citizens and others throughout the territory of India as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but when the State and its machinery has failed to protect life and liberty in such situation, it is duty of the State only to come at the rescue of such innocent deceased persons who are killed by known or unknown miscreants. 3. During course of hearing, this Court on 09.05.2018 has passed the following order: “The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, by way of compensation, to the dependent of the deceased-Imteyaz Khan, who was killed by the miscreants. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 518 (Suresh Vs. State of Haryana) and 2006 Vol.3 SCC 571. Learned Counsel further submits that there is a provision of victim compensation under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding Victim Compensation Scheme. The relevant portion of Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced herein below:- 357-A Victim Compensation Scheme– 1. Every State Government in coordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. 2. Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1). In view of the specific provision of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby direct the petitioner to appear before the Member Secretary, JHALSA on 30.05.2018 On his appearance and placement of the case, the Secretary shall do needful in view of Section 357 A of the Criminal Procedure Code 2026:JHHC:4394 3 taking into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and take a decision on the quantum of compensation to be granted to the petitioner in addition to what he has already received. It is made clear that already in view of the direction of NALSA, JHALSA has taken several steps for granting victim compensation. It is a fit case in which JHALSA should take initiative and immediate steps for grant of victim compensation to the petitioner. The Member Secretary, JHALSA or the competent Authority shall submit their report before this Court regarding the steps taken or any other order passed by the Competent Authority, within a period of four weeks. As far as appointment is concerned, the same shall be considered as per the policy decision and the scheme of the State, if any. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ application for seeking employment. As far as victim compensation is concerned, the same shall be adjudicated in view of the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Suresh Vrs. State of Haryana”, reported in AIR 2015 SC 518. Put up this case on 16.07.2018.” 4. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 25.09.2020 wherein the respondent-State has made the following averments in para 4 to 7: “4. That the instant matter was earlier listed on 09.05.2018, wherein this Hon'ble court has been pleased to observe that in view of the direction of NALSA, JHALSA has taken several steps for granting compensation to the victim. It is a fit case in which JHALSA should have taken initiative and remedial steps for grant of victim compensation to the petitioner. 5. That this Hon'ble court directed Member Secretary, JHALSA or the competent authority to submit their report before this court regarding the steps taken or any other order passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks. 6. That in compliance with the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P.(S) No. 7376/2017, a meeting of the District Level Service Authority, Committee, Latehar was convened on 02.07.2018 to provide compensation to the victim under Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016. The said meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Principal District & Sessions Judge -cum-DLSA, Latehar. In the aforesaid meeting, the committee has opined that: “The enquiry report of secretary is placed. According to it, the aforesaid petitioner is aged about 60 years. As per his statement he has not received any compensation from government or any other agency in respect of the alleged crime. As per schedule-I, Sl. No. 6 of JVCS, 2016, the minimum compensation to the victim of murder can be awarded Rs. 2 Lacs. The Committee is of the view to award compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs.” 7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in light of the decision taken by the DLSA Committee, Latehar dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016.” 2026:JHHC:4394 4 5. Thus, it appears that in the light of decision taken by District Legal Services Authority, Committee, Latehar dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner has been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016. 6. After perusing Schedule-I at Serial No.6 of the said Scheme of 2016, it appears that the minimum compensation to the victim of murder can be awarded Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, the Committee has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs. A minutes of meeting is annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. 7. It has been contended by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the compensation is very less and the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases has even granted compensation up to Rs.20,00,000/-. This argument of the Ld. Sr. Counsel is not acceptable to this Court in view of the fact that Section 9 of Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016 specifically provides for appeal. In other words, there is a specific provision of appeal if any of the beneficiary is not satisfied with the decision of District Legal Services Authority, Committee and the petitioner, instead of availing the provision has directly approached this Court. 8. Even otherwise, the scheme says that it should be minimum Rs.2,00,000/-; as such, this Court under writ jurisdiction cannot entertain a petition of compensation as to 2026:JHHC:4394 5 whether the beneficiary is entitled for more compensation or not and that is the reason that there is a provision of Appeal. For brevity, Section 9 of Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016 is extracted hereinbelow: “9. िजला िविधक सेवा ᮧािधकार ᳇ारा ᮧितकर के इ᭠कार से ᳞िथत कोई पीिड़त ᳞िᲦ रा᭔य सिमित के समᭃ न᭣बे ᳰदनᲂ के भीतर अपील दायर कर सकता है: पर᭠तु यᳰद रा᭔य सिमित का समाधान हो जाता है तो वह कारणᲂ को अिभिलिखत करते ᱟए अपील करने मᱶ ᱟए िवल᭥ब को माफ कर सकता है।” 9. Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner; accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) FEBRUARY 16, 2026 vikas/- N . A . F . R . uploaded 21.02.2026