A panel of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih was considering a petition submitted by a man sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment for rioting and house-trespass by a court in Alwar, Rajasthan. He submitted a request for permanent parole on December 3, 2023, which was denied on January 18, 2024. Subsequently, he contested the order before the Rajasthan High Court.
On November 5, 2024, a single judge allowed his petition and ordered his release upon providing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and two sureties of Rs 50,000 each. By that time, he had already completed 3 years, 2 months, and 20 days of his sentence.
In 2024, he was yet to be released despite adhering to the conditions set by the HC order. He then approached the Division Bench, which mandated his immediate release on December 6, 2024. Following this, the man petitioned the Supreme Court for compensation due to his unlawful custody.
During the proceedings on Friday, the apex court cited George Washington, the first US president, stating, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” “We believe that the appellant deserves compensation for the 24 days of unlawful custody he endured at the hands of the respondent State. The freedom of an individual is not insignificant.” “The State cannot continue to restrict it despite a court order due to its slow bureaucratic processes regarding the decision to file appeals.”
“If we were to accept such a notion, it would mean that a person’s liberty is subjected to the administrative decision of whether to appeal, which cannot be justified,” the bench remarked.
The Supreme Court asserted that once a detenue is ordered to be released, that order must be executed regardless of circumstances, except in cases where a higher court has placed a stay on the matter.
“A conviction does not diminish an individual’s rights in the eyes of justice. We state this because the due process of verifying sureties had already occurred, and yet there remains an unexplained delay,” it stated.
“This Court recognizes that official procedures require some time. Nonetheless, it is the State’s responsibility to ensure that its processes do not adversely affect an individual who has secured his freedom,” the bench concluded.
