Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Initially this petition was filed by petitioner Ram Lal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to award compensation to him on account of the illegal arrest and detention of his son. The said petition was subsequently ordered to be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has been numbered as Crl. Misc. No. 16357-M of 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Surinder Singh son of Ramdeen, Caste Khatiq, resident of H.No. 1488, Anaj Mandi, Jagadhari, was an accused in case FIR No. 673 dated 3.12.1999 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. In the said case, he was on bail. Later on, he was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 14.2.2003 by the Court of JMIC, Ambala Cantt. 3. In the year 2001, a special team was constituted under the direction of the Government to nab the Proclaimed Offenders who have jumped the bail. On 22.6.2004, on a secret information, son of the petitioner namely, Surender Kumar, who is Harijan by caste and was resident of village Nalagarh/Khera Farm, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, and who was not an accused in the aforesaid FIR, was arrested by HC Satya Narain (respondent No. 5) and his team as a Proclaimed Offender in the aforesaid case. On 23.6.2004, he was produced before the JMIC, Ambala Cantt, who sent him in judicial custody till 1.7.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner told the police as well as to the Court that he is not Surender son of Ram Deen, who is an accused in a case, and he is a different person though his name is the same but nobody listened to him. On 23.6.2004, when he was produced before the Court, the following order was passed :- "Accused produced today before me in custody being P.O., being duty Magistrate, bail application moved. Notice of the same be given to Ld. APP for 1.7.04 for reply and consideration. Till then accused be kept in Judl. Custody. Papers be sent to the Court concerned immediately." 4. On 1.7.2004, the matter was taken up and the case was again adjourned for 9.7.2004 and file pertaining to the case was summoned. Notice of the same be given to Ld. APP for 1.7.04 for reply and consideration. Till then accused be kept in Judl. Custody. Papers be sent to the Court concerned immediately." 4. On 1.7.2004, the matter was taken up and the case was again adjourned for 9.7.2004 and file pertaining to the case was summoned. The following order was passed on 1.7.2004 :- "Since as per prosecution, the accused is P.O. of present case, therefore, file pertaining to this case be summoned for 9.7.04. Till then accused is remanded to judicial custody." On 9.7.2004, the following order was passed :- "At this stage, one Ram Lal son of Rulia Ram has appeared before the Court and he has stated that accused Surinder Kumar is his son, who is wrongly arrested in this case. Hence, accused Surinder who is also present before the Court when asked he deposed about the name of his father Ram Lal instead of Ram Din, which is mentioned in his remand paper as well as in main file/challan. He has also stated that he never committed the present offence. At the same, it is seen that the present accused was got produced before the Court after his arrest on 23.6.2003. On the same date, on his part bail application and the power of attorney, was got moved through Shri Paritosh Kapil, Advocate, wherein name of father of accused is mentioned as Ram Din. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused has also stated that earlier to his production, accused told him that name of his father is Ram Lal as well but in view of the remand paper as well as asking from the police he mentioned about name of father of accused as Ram Din instead of Ram Lal. Bail application of accused in itself provides for that due to the serious illness of his wife, accused could not appear before the Court and was declared P.O. on 14.2.03. The contents of the bail application in itself suggest that produced accused is accused of the present case though fathers named has been mentioned as otherwise that is why he has moved such application for his bail. However, to remove the doubt, SI Sanjiv Kumar, Incharge, P.O. Staff, has been summoned, who is seen to get move application for seeking of judicial remand of accused after his arrest on 23.6.04. However, to remove the doubt, SI Sanjiv Kumar, Incharge, P.O. Staff, has been summoned, who is seen to get move application for seeking of judicial remand of accused after his arrest on 23.6.04. Sanjiv Kumar, SI, Incharge, P.O. Staff has put forward his explanation before the Court, wherein, it has been mentioned that from the given address where accused resides on rent, he was got arrested on 22.6.2004; and that during verification, from his in-laws and other respectables, he came to know that earlier when FIR was got registered, accused wrongly told about the name of his father as well as about his caste and when his signatures were got compared with the earlier one, it was found as same. Hence, present accused is the same person, who is wanted in the present case and was got arrested. Heard, in view of the submitted report, I.O. H.C. Satya Narain be also got summoned for the date already fixed for production of accused i.e. 15.7.2004." 5. From the aforesaid order, it appears that SI Incharge Sanjeev Kumar (respondent No. 6) has verified that the son of the petitioner was the accused and he was rightly arrested. Then the Court summoned H.C. Satya Narain, who arrested the accused and the case was adjourned for 15.7.2004. 6. On 15.7.2004 the case was adjourned for 19.7.2004 as the notice to I.O. was not issued by the concerned Ahlmad. On 19.7.2004, the real accused in the aforesaid case, namely, Surender son of Ram Deen, Caste Khatiq along with his surety appeared in the Court. He was taken into custody and subsequently released on bail. The son of the petitioner, who was illegally detained in the aforesaid case, was ordered to be released. While releasing him, JMIC, Ambala Cantt observed as under :- "For today, notice to I.O. was got issued which is not received back. Further, Advocate Shri Jaspal along with previous surety of accused namely Bhatwat Parshad has appeared before the Court. The said surety vide his statement has stated that he earlier stood as surety of the accused of the present case and today he wants to produce him before the Court. Further, the accused has been got produced and on his part application for surrendering and bail has been got moved through Sh. Jaspal, Advocate alongwith power of attorney. The said surety vide his statement has stated that he earlier stood as surety of the accused of the present case and today he wants to produce him before the Court. Further, the accused has been got produced and on his part application for surrendering and bail has been got moved through Sh. Jaspal, Advocate alongwith power of attorney. At the same (time), same counsel has moved an application for discharge/release of accused Surinder Kumar son of Ram Lal. Heard on the said application. Here, it has been mentioned that stated person has been wrongly got produced by the police in this case by mentioning him as accused of the present case namely Surinder Kumar son of Ram Din. Since today by the earlier surety and the present counsel, original accused has been got produced before the Court thereof, said accused is taken into custody. The person namely Surinder Kumar who is already in custody is hereby ordered to be released as he is seen to be got produced before the Court wrongly by police mentioning him as the accused. Accordingly, a warning is hereby got issued to the concerned police official by whom Surinder Kumar son of Ram Lal has been got produced before the Court mentioning as the accused. Further, in regard of said misconduct/negligence of the concerned official, a separate letter be also got written to S.P. Ambala for taking of proper action against him." 7. Thus, from the above facts, it is clear that the son of the petitioner remained in illegal detention from 22.6.2004 to 19.7.2004 i.e. for 28 days. For the said illegal detention, this petition has been filed for award of compensation against the guilty police officials. 8. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. In the reply, the aforesaid factual position has not been disputed. Only it has been stated that on the secret information the son of the petitioner was arrested being Proclaimed Offender in the aforesaid case as his personal particulars i.e. height, age, colour etc. were tallied with the police file. It has been stated that even his signatures were also tallied. It has been further stated that at the time of arrest, the son of the petitioner admitted that he was involved in number of criminal cases. He did not object to his arrest. were tallied with the police file. It has been stated that even his signatures were also tallied. It has been further stated that at the time of arrest, the son of the petitioner admitted that he was involved in number of criminal cases. He did not object to his arrest. He was taken to his house for giving information about his arrest but nobody raised any objection that he was not the right person. Thus, it has been stated that the local police has acted bona fidely in discharge of their duties as the son of the petitioner was arrested on the basis of mistaken identity. There was nothing personal or any enmity with him. The police came to know about the real accused only when on 19.7.2004 he was produced before the Court by his surety. Therefore, the action taken by the police was in good faith and that too in the interest of the State and as such no compensation should be awarded. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Undisputedly, son of the petitioner was not an accused in FIR No. 673 dated 3.12.1999 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. However, he was arrested in the aforesaid case being a proclaimed offender by respondent No. 5 on 22.6.2004 and produced before the Court on the next date. Thereafter, he remained in judicial custody for 28 days. In the reply, respondent No. 5 and 6 have taken the stand that son of the petitioner was arrested because his personal particulars were tallying with the police record. Even his signatures were also tallying. Further he also admitted his involvement in number of cases. It has been further stated that he was taken to his house and nobody objected to his arrest. 10. In my opinion, the explanation given by the aforesaid respondents does not inspire any confidence. Immediately after his arrest when the father of the petitioner appeared before the Court on 9.7.2004, he had stated that his son was wrongly arrested in this case. On his statement, the Court became cautious and to remove the doubt SI Sanjiv Kumar, Incharge PO Staff (respondent No. 6) was summoned in the Court, as he moved an application seeking judicial remand of the accused when on 23.6.2004 he was produced before the Court. On his statement, the Court became cautious and to remove the doubt SI Sanjiv Kumar, Incharge PO Staff (respondent No. 6) was summoned in the Court, as he moved an application seeking judicial remand of the accused when on 23.6.2004 he was produced before the Court. Before the Court, respondent No. 6 again took the stand that son of the petitioner was the real accused and he was rightly arrested by the police on proper verification. But the Court was not satisfied and summoned HC Satya Narain (respondent No. 5), who arrested the accused and also directed him to produce the real person. On 15.7.2004, the case was adjourned as the Investigating Officer was not present. On 19.7.2004, the real accused alongwith his surety came present in the Court. He was taken into custody and the son of the petitioner was released. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that son of the petitioner was wrongly arrested by respondent No. 5 and produced in the Court. On 23.7.2004, respondent No. 6 wrongly obtained judicial custody of the accused by making wrong verification that he was the real accused though he was not involved in the case. The stand taken by the aforesaid respondents that they had acted in a bona fide manner, cannot be believed as on 9.7.2004 when the father of the petitioner appeared before the Court and made a statement that his son was wrongly arrested, even then the respondents took the stand that son of the petitioner is real accused and he was rightly arrested. They did not bother to verify the stand taken by the petitioner before the Court. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are liable for the illegal detention of the son of the petitioner from 22.6.2004 to 19.7.2004. 11. In Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 18, it has been held that the State is liable to pay compensation for the wrong done by its officials in case the fundamental right of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated. In such case even the defence of `Sovereign Immunity is not available. In such case even the defence of `Sovereign Immunity is not available. Such defence is available only in private law in an action based on tort, but not in public law, where action is based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights. The Court has wide powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to award suitable compensation for established violation of fundamental rights especially Article 21. It has been further held that the High Courts being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course, has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrong-doer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. 12. Keeping in view the principle laid down in the aforesaid case, I am of the opinion that the State is liable to pay compensation to the son of the petitioner for his illegal detention on the vicarious liability for the wrong action of its officials (respondent Nos. 5 and 6). Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is assessed as compensation to be paid to the son of the petitioner by the State Government. However, it will be open for the State-respondent No. 1 to recover the said amount from respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who have been found responsible for the alleged illegal detention.