ORDER Petitioner's son John Anthony Raj was apprehended on 21.1.1989 in connection with a case of impersonation during the general elections to Assembly 1989. He posed himself as one Selvaraj, son of Velu, whose name appeared in the electoral roll of Alandur Assembly constituency. Therefore, a complaint against John Anthony Raj was registered in Crime No.58 of 1989 under Sec.171(F) of the I.P.C. at Adambakkam Police Station at 14.10 hrs. on the same day. At 2.30 p.m. one Sub-Inspector of Police Dorairaj brought the said John Anthony Raj along with a complaint letter given by R.Rajagopalan, Presiding Officer of the concerned polling booth. At 4 p.m. the petitioner's son John Anthony Raj was escorted by two police constables for producing him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tambaram. While they were waiting at St.Thomas Mount Railway Station, the petitioner's son tried to escape and he fell and was hit by the electric train. He was then removed to the General Hospital for treatment, where he died on the same day at 8.45 p.m. 2. The petitioner states that his son was working as a technician in Doordharshan and was earning Rs. 1, 500 per month after deductions and he was the Secretary for the D.M.K. Youth Forum before he was appointed in Doordharshan. It is alleged in the affidavit, the petitioner’s deceased son was assisting his party agents in the polling booth. Subsequently, the petitioner received information that he was arrested for impersonation in a polling booth. After the receipt of information, her husband along with ore Mr.S.Vanchinathan, Advocate, Malaiyappan, Om Murugan, Dastagir and Mahadevan went to Adambakkam Police Station to enquire about her son's arrest. It is stated that the counsel Mr.Vanchinathan requested the Sub-Inspector of Police to enlarge the petitioner's son on bail, since it is a bailable offence. But, the Sub-Inspector of Police replied that some very important persons recommended for his arrest and hence he would not enlarge him on bail. It was further stated that a criminal case would be registered against the petitioner's son and that he would release the petitioner's son if the Superintendent of Police permitted him to release the petitioner's son on bail. It was further stated that a criminal case would be registered against the petitioner's son and that he would release the petitioner's son if the Superintendent of Police permitted him to release the petitioner's son on bail. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner's counsel Mr.Vanchinathan and other party people were taking steps to meet the Superintendent of Police and in the meanwhile, the police brought the petitioner's son to St.Thomas Railway Station to take him to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court at Tambaram. It is alleged that after hearing this news, the petitioner's counsel Mr.Vanchinathan and two others went to Tambaram Court. But when they were waiting at Tambaram, they were informed that the petitioner's son was run over by an electric train when he was in the custody of two constables at St.Thomas Railway Station. It is alleged that Adambakkam police refused to enlarge the petitioner's son on bail even though he was arrested only for a bailable offence, and only due to the carelessness on the part of the police, she lost her son, It is also alleged that an enquiry under Rule 145 of the Police Standing Orders was held and no report has been made with regard to the enquiry conducted. It is further stated that her family has been running from earth to heaven to find out the real cause of death of the petitioner's son and they are yet to know about the cause of the death. It is alleged that the second son of the petitioner was given employment as Junior Assistant in Doordharshan on compassionate ground. The death of John Anthony Raj has resulted in grave mental agony. It is further stated that the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to enlarge the petitioner's son has to be deemed as dereliction of duty i.e., 4th respondent ought to have enlarged the petitioner's son on bail. The 3rd respondent ought to have disclosed the result of the enquiry conducted regarding the mysterious death of the petitioner's son John Anthony Raj, 1st and 2nd respondents are vicariously liable for the act of the 4th respondent. The act of the respondents is in flagrant violation of Arts.14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. State of Tamil Nadu is bound to compensate the petitioner monetarily for her son's death. 3. The act of the respondents is in flagrant violation of Arts.14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. State of Tamil Nadu is bound to compensate the petitioner monetarily for her son's death. 3. Reference to various decisions of the Supreme Court was made where payment of compensation is awarded. Reference to the judgment of this Court in R.Gandhiv. Union of India, 102L.W.399, is .also made, wherein compensation has been awarded by a learned Judge of this Court to the people of Sikh community living in Coimbatore whose personal rights and belongings were affected on the eve of the death of former Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi. It is further alleged that taking into account the age of the petitioner's son at the time of death and his earning at Rs. 1, 700 per month, monetary compensation of Rs.3, 00, 000 has to be awarded. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 3.8.1990. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adambakkam, Muniandi, has stated in the enquiry held by the Revenue Divisional Officer that he was on election duty in Zone 14 of Tambaram Assembly Constituency on 21.1.1989 and he was not aware of the case relating to John Anthony Raj and he did not register the case. It is stated that none of the persons mentioned in the petition have approached him for getting the details of the petitioner's son from the Sub-Inspector of Police. One Arjunan, Head Constable, Adambakkam police station, who registered the case against the petitioner's son has stated that he sent two police escort for producing the petitioner's son before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tambaram. As the Sub-Inspector of Police was not available, be could not enlarge the petitioner's son on bail. K.Anandan, P.C. 911, who was in charge of the said police station after the Head Constable went for inspection stated that no one came to the police station when the investigation of the case was going on; nor anyone moved for bail for the petitioner's deceased son. Raja Saloman, Police Constable has stated that the deceased escaped from their custody and jumped on the railway track, when the electric train for Tambaram was proceeding to the platform and dashed against him causing bleeding injuries. Raja Saloman, Police Constable has stated that the deceased escaped from their custody and jumped on the railway track, when the electric train for Tambaram was proceeding to the platform and dashed against him causing bleeding injuries. This was corroborated by Nagappan, Avildar and Dharmabalan, Motorman, Southern Railways, who was the driver of the electric train. It is categorically stated in the counter that the facts will show that this accident took place on account of bid to escape by the petitioner's son. There is no material evidence to show that there was no refusal by the 4th respondent to enlarge the petitioner's son on bail, though it is admitted that the offence is a bailable one. It is stated that a fair enquiry was conducted by the third respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are not vicariously liable for the action of the 4th respondent. It is stated that for the death of the petitioner's son nobody could be blamed. Art.21 is not violated. There is no dispute regarding the scope of Art.21 of the Constitution as set out in the petition. It is stated that the question is, whether the facts set out in the affidavit attract Arts.21 and 22 of the Constitution or not. The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. It is also stated that the petitioner's son was taken to police custody only in accordance with law. This is not the proper forum to investigate the facts of the case. This writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The third respondent, who conducted enquiry has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that 8 witnesses were examined and they are the petitioner's father, Mr.Vanchinathan, an Advocate of this Court, Mahadevan, Selvaraj, and Muniandi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Constables and the electric train driver Dharmabalan. Witnesses 1 to 5 have spoken about the contacting of the Sub-Inspector of Police and the refusal of bail. Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that as he was on election duty in Zone 14 of Tambaram Assembly Constituency, he was not aware of the case. Head Constable, who was in charge of the Police station has given evidence to the effect that between 2.30 and 4 p.m. when the petitioner's son was in the police station, nobody came to the police station and moved for bail. Head Constable, who was in charge of the Police station has given evidence to the effect that between 2.30 and 4 p.m. when the petitioner's son was in the police station, nobody came to the police station and moved for bail. Selvaraj and Nagappan has stated that the petitioner's son jumped on the railway track, which has been corroborated by Dharmapalan, Motorman. 6. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was not the person in charge of the police station on that date and that he is taking the facts from the records. It is stated that the offence is a bailable one. All the materials were placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The records show that nobody moved for enlarging the petitioner on bail. This respondent is not liable for compensation. In other respects, this counter affidavit followed the counter of respondents 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions in the affidavit. He contends that the offence is a bailable one and when the father of the deceased and the counsel Mr. Vanchinathan along with others went to the police station to enlarge the deceased on bail, it was refused. This act amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also stated that the petitioner's son died when he was in police custody and as such, compensation has to be awarded, taking into consideration the cases decided by the Supreme Court and also by this Court in (102 L.W. 399 -cited supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that Mishra, J. in a case reported in 1990 Writ L.R. 313, has also recently awarded compensation in a case where a person was illegally detained in the police station. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that taking into consideration the questions involved in this case and also the fact that for a bailable offence, the petitioner's son was not enlarged on bail, this Court should compensate the petitioner duly by awarding a reasonable compensation. 8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Mr.Arivudainambi would contend that on the basis of the enquiry report, it is very clear that there is no evidence at all to show that anybody came to the police station with a request to enlarge the petitioner's son on bail. 8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Mr.Arivudainambi would contend that on the basis of the enquiry report, it is very clear that there is no evidence at all to show that anybody came to the police station with a request to enlarge the petitioner's son on bail. The learned Government Advocate contends that the procedure prescribed by law has been followed and when the petitioner's son was taken to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court Tambaram, he has tried to escape and jumped in the railway track and thereby, he was hit by an electric train. As such, the learned Government Advocate states that the State is not bound to pay any compensation. It is further contended that this is a case, where facts are in dispute and when disputed questions of facts are involved this Court sitting under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot decide the question. 9. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, I do not think that the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court can be applied to this case, straightaway. Further, to apply the law laid down by the apex Court and also this Court, the facts have to be more clear. I have gone through the records of the enquiry and the counter affidavits of the respondents. There are different versions with regard to the person who was in charge of the station at the particular point of time and with regard to the persons alleged to have gone for enlarging the petitioner's son on bail. Though it is admitted that the offence is a bailable offence, it is stated in the enquiry that nobody came to enlarge the deceased on bail. Apart from that, when the petitioner's son was taken by two constables, it seems, from the records that the petitioner's son tried to escape from the custody and ran away and fell down and hit by the electric train. In view of the disputed questions of fact, I do not think that this Court can straightaway decide the case and award compensation to the extent of Rs.3, 00, 000 as prayed for by the petitioner. In view of the disputed questions of fact, I do not think that this Court can straightaway decide the case and award compensation to the extent of Rs.3, 00, 000 as prayed for by the petitioner. It is true that in the enquiry report, departmental action has been recommended against the Head Constable for sending the petitioner's son to the Court of Tambaram without following the procedure under Sec.158, Crl.P.C, and also against AS.Raja, Police Constable, for negligence in having allowed the petitioner's son to escape. It is also true that the report recommends payment of compensation to the petitioner for the death of her son, who was the bread winner of the family. As I have already stated, this is clearly a case, where disputed questions of facts have to be gone into. In my view, whether the State is liable to compensation is a question that has to be decided in a properly laid civil suit. 10. The decision laid down by Khadar, J., in, 102 L. W. 399, and the decision of Mishra, J., in another case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases, the facts are not in dispute. Here, the petitioner's son was also responsible for his death and he made an escape bid, fell down in the track and lost his life. It is also seen that on compassionate ground, one other son of the petitioner has been given appointment in the Doordharshan. As such, in my view, this Court need not exercise discretion to the extent she wants, that is, to award compensation straightaway to the tune of Rs.3, 00, 000 on the ground that Arts.21 and 22 of the Constitution have been violated. However, I am of the view that it has to be decided on evidence, both oral and documentary, in a properly laid suit by the petitioner, if so advised. However, I am of the view that it has to be decided on evidence, both oral and documentary, in a properly laid suit by the petitioner, if so advised. But taking into consideration the report of the enquiry by the third respondent in which it is stated that the procedure under Sec.158, Crl.P.C. has not been followed and that for a bailable offence, the deceased was denied of the concession by the Head Constable one Arjunan and also taking into consideration the fact that it is due to the negligence of Police Constables Raja Saloman and Selvaraj, the deceased had tried to escape at the cost of his life, I am inclined to grant an interim compensation of Rs. 1, 00, 000 to the petitioner as she has lost the bread winner of the family consisting of her husband, three daughters, who are unmarried and another son. In my view, some weight has to be given to the evidence adduced by a member of this Bar in the enquiry. The first respondent is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 into this Court within one month from the date of this order and after such a deposit is made, the petitioner has to make a proper application according to law, for payment out when the mode of payment will be considered. The abovesaid sum of Rs.1, 00, 000 is awarded as compensation in the nature of a palliative only. It is open to the petitioner to prefer a civil claim for damages against the respondents, if so advised. This writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. No costs. V.K.-----Petition allowed in part.