JUDGMENT :- (R. Kantha Rao, J) 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6195 of 2002. 2. The appellants filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay suitable compensation to them for falsely implicating them in Crime No.100 of 2001 of Miduthuru Police Station, District Kurnool and thereafter arresting them and illegally detaining them in prison for 32 days alleging commission of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC which ultimately proved to be false when it was made known that the said deceased Thotabaija Pedda Lakshmaiah was in fact alive and was produced by the petitioners’ counsel before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 3. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge who dismissed the same on the ground that the subject matter of writ petition involves detailed enquiry in to the questions of fact and evidence and a direction issuing writ of mandamus by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India could not be made. 4. The said order is challenged in the present writ appeal by the appellants who filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge. Their contention is that without going into the controversial facts and details of evidence, a definite finding can be given to the effect that knowing fully well the investigating officer falsely implicated them in a grave charge of murder, caused their detention illegally and thus, they are entitled for compensation which was wrongly negatived by the learned single Judge. 5. We have heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 6. The facts, which gave rise for filing the writ petition, may be stated as follows: On 25.12.2001 at about 1030 hours the Village Administrative Officer, Alaganuru in District Kurnool had sent up a report to the Station House Officer, Miduthuru Police Station informing about the existence of an unidentified partially burnt dead body of a male in Alaganuru fields. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.100 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and the investigation was commenced. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.100 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and the investigation was commenced. According to the police on 25.12.2001 on seeing the news item concerning this matter, the de facto complainant/informant Thotabalija Andri Venkatalakshmaiah and his relatives came to Alaganuru fields, identified the dead body as that of the deceased, Pedda Laxmaiah, thereafter the de facto complainant lodged a report with the police. After receiving a written report from Thotabalija Andri Venkatalakshmaiah, the brother of the deceased, the section of law was altered from 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 7. As disclosed from the remand report and the record of investigation submitted at the time of hearing of the writ appeal, it appears that the investigation revealed that on the night of 13.12.2001 the deceased allegedly misbehaved with the wife of A-1 Subbamma at Somayajulapalli choultry by laying hand on her while she was sleeping in the choultry, and on that Subbamma, the wife of A-1 allegedly warned the deceased that she would convey the information to her husband A-1, and would thereby cause the death of the deceased. The police story is that on the night of 15.12.2001 A-1 to A-3 kidnapped the deceased from Somayajulapalli choultry, brought him in a tipper to Alaganur cross road, from there, took him into the jowar fields, there they beat him with hands, kicked him and ultimately cut his throat with a knife and killed him. Thereafter, it is said that they had burnt the deadbody to screen the offence and left the deadbody in the field itself. 8. As per the investigation, the respondents 2 and 3 along with the staff and mediators proceeded to Soma Company bus stop on a reliable information and arrested A-1 to A-3 on 10.01.2002 at about 1600 hours. Subsequently, it is said that basing on the alleged confession made by the appellants, the investigating officer recovered knife, which was said to have been used in the commission of the offence at the instance of A-2 which A2 picked up from the bushes in Alaganuru Barakas fields and produced before the investigating officer. 9. After the arrest of the appellants, they were produced before the Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. 9. After the arrest of the appellants, they were produced before the Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the appellants moved bail application in Crl.M.P.No.207 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crime No.100 of 2001. The bail petition was filed on 05.02.2002 and it was adjourned to 08.02.2002, thereafter to 11.02.2002 and ultimately to 13.02.2002. On 12.02.2002 the learned Sessions Judge advanced the bail application suo-motu on seeing a news item in a Telugu daily to the effect that the deceased who was alleged to have been murdered is in fact alive. On the same day, the deceased who was allegedly killed by the appellants was produced by their counsel Sri V.Narendernath Reddy before the Sessions Judge, Kurnool in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor, Sub-Inspector of Police, Miduthuru and others. The brother of Pedda Laxmaiah by name Chinna Laxmaiah was also produced before the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the sworn statements of Pedda Laxmaiah and Chinna Laxmaiah. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miduthuru i.e. respondent No.2 who was present by then has also identified Pedda Laxmaiah. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge released the appellants. 10. The grievance of the appellants is that they were arrested by the police on the false allegation of committing murder of Pedda Laxmaiah and were illegally detained in prison from 10.01.2002 to 12.02.2002 i.e. for 32 days. The respondents 2 and 3 knowing fully well that the appellants were not involved in the commission of the offence and moreover, no offence was committed in respect of Pedda Laxmaih, arrested them and produced them before the Magistrate. They also say that in the process of the alleged investigation, they were also harassed and tortured by the police while they were in police custody and they had to sell away their sheep and cattle for the purpose of raising money to fight the litigation to prove their innocence and thus, they lost their livelihood and further they were subjected to harassment and were put to great mental agony on false charge of murder. They contend that their arrest and detention is illegal and in violation of the human rights and personal liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. They contend that their arrest and detention is illegal and in violation of the human rights and personal liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that absolutely there was no basis for the respondents 2 and 3 to arrest and to cause detention of the appellants in Jail, they very well knew that the appellants were not involved in the commission of the murder, but, only to show some progress in the investigation, they arrested the appellants and produced them before the Magistrate. He would further submit that the learned single Judge without properly examining the material available on record, which is enough to prove that the respondents 2 and 3 have falsely implicated the appellants and got them detained in prison, erroneously held that it requires thorough examination of facts and evidence to arrive at a finding and therefore, no relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus could be granted. Thus, he seeks to set aside the said finding and grant compensation to the appellants. 12. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home would contend that it cannot be said that absolutely there was no basis for respondents 2 and 3 to apprehend the appellants and according to him, the appellants were apprehended and were sent to judicial remand basing on the report lodged by Chinna Laxmaiah who is no other than the younger brother of Pedda Laxmaiah and the statements of the witnesses who were examined by the police also furnish the material for respondents 2 and 3 to suspect the appellants, no mala fides or laches can be attributed to the respondents 2 and 3 and in view of the fact that the appellants were apprehended in the process of investigation, no compensation as rightly held by the learned single Judge could be granted even though ultimately it was found that the alleged deceased Pedda Laxmaiah was in fact alive. 13. 13. The only point arises for determination in this appeal is whether the arrest of the appellants and their detention in prison in the course of the alleged investigation in Crime No.100 of 2001 of Miduthuru Police Station is illegal and if so, an order in the nature of writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the appellants? 14. The only ground on which the learned single Judge declined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus is that the issue requires thorough examination of facts and evidence and without the allegations being proved by cogent evidence, the relief prayed for could not be granted. 15. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY WELFARE COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2003)8 SCC 546 = 2003 (6) ALT 39.2 dealing with a case wherein, the High Court directed the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the widow of the deceased, where the death of the deceased was allegedly a custodial death, from the police officers concerned pro-rata, the Apex Court held as follows: “The issue involving allegation of custodial death, will have to be adjudicated in an enquiry wherein it will have to be decided where the acts of the police officers concerned were in performance of State duties (sovereign function) or outside the same. If it is found that the appellant officers did cause the death of the deceased and the same is not in the performance of their official duty or in excess of the same then they cannot escape the liability. This question would arise only as and when an inquiry specifically in this regard is conducted and at this stage, it is too premature for us to go into this question.” 16. This question would arise only as and when an inquiry specifically in this regard is conducted and at this stage, it is too premature for us to go into this question.” 16. In STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS v N.M.T.JOY IMMACULATE (2004)5 SCC 729 = 2004 (5) ALT 4.2 (DNSC) Considering the finding of the High Court where the investigation conducted by the police concerned was held not bona fide and false records had been created to implicate “J” and that “J” had been wrongfully and illegally detained by the police for four days and was harassed and tortured by the police personnel, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the High Court in revision could not have gone into the merits of the case and the findings recorded by it that the accused was illegally detained and ill-treated by the police, investigation conducted was not bona fide and records were fabricated to implicate the accused are not proper. According to the Supreme Court it was for the trial Court to record any finding in respect thereof and any party aggrieved by the findings of the trial court will have a right of appeal before the High Court after the case is decided. 17. We have examined the judgments of the Apex Court in the above referred decisions and we are of the view that the situations those led the Supreme Court to render both decisions are altogether different to that of the present case. If it is a case where without a detailed enquiry and gathering evidence, the factum of illegal detention or wrongful confinement cannot be established, then in the absence of such an enquiry, it may not be proper for the Court to award compensation in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India complaining breach of fundamental right to life and personal liberty. But there may be cases wherein without conducting any enquiry, perusal of material on record itself indicating wrongful arrest and illegal detention, and then the High Court while dealing with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, is not justified in insisting upon an elaborate enquiry into the controversial facts. When the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellants and the counter allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners and also the record of investigation obviously indicate illegal arrest and wrongful detention in prison, this Court in our view can record a finding that the arrest as well as detention are wrongful and illegal and that they are in clear breach of fundamental right to life and personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and can proceed to award compensation. 18. Before arriving at a decision as to whether the material available on record justifies recording a finding as to the illegal arrest and wrongful confinement made by the respondents, we shall examine the fact situation in the present case. The village Administrative officer had sent up a report to Miduthuru Police Station on 25.12.2001 informing about the existence of the partially burnt unidentified deadbody in the fields. It is the version of the police that the de facto complainant-Venkata Laxmaiah, who is the brother of the deceased saw the news item published on 25.12.2001 in the daily newspaper, rushed to the fields of Alaganuru Village, identified the dead body as that of his brother, thereafter, lodged a report with the police on the same day stating that Pedda Laxmaiah was missing. The investigating officer prepared inquest panchanama as if the de facto complainant (informant) and some other relatives of the deceased identified the dead body of Pedda Laxmaiah. The version of the police is that on the night of 13.12.2001 Subbamma, the wife of the first appellant (A1) quarreled with her husband, came to the choultry, slept there itself in the night where the deceased also slept and during the said night, the deceased mis-behaved with Subbamma by laying his hand on her while she was sleeping. Thereafter, according to the police, Subbamma threatened the deceased that she would inform the same to her husband and see that the deceased (Pedda Laxmaiah) is killed. The theory introduced by the police in the record of investigation is that the above incident afforded motive for the appellants, who are closely related to each other to kill the deceased. Thereafter, according to the police, Subbamma threatened the deceased that she would inform the same to her husband and see that the deceased (Pedda Laxmaiah) is killed. The theory introduced by the police in the record of investigation is that the above incident afforded motive for the appellants, who are closely related to each other to kill the deceased. All these facts have also been incorporated in the first information report lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the brother of Pedda Laxmaiah and according to the police they altered the section of law from 174 Criminal Procedure Code to one under Section 302 and 201 of IPC only basing on the said report. The entire record of investigation has been prepared as if the said contents of the first information report is the basis for suspecting the appellants as the perpetrators of the offence. 19. Though the police prepared the record of investigation indicating that the de facto complainant and some other relatives had clearly identified the dead body of the deceased-Pedda Laxmaiah, the alleged identification seems to be doubtful. As per the inquest report and postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 40 years, but as could be seen from the sworn statement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the age of the deceased-Pedda Laxmaiah is 55 years. Therefore, it is highly difficult to believe that, in fact, the brother and other relatives of the deceased identified the dead body as that of Pedda Laxmaiah. 20. The investigating officer prepared the record of investigation indicating that he in the course of investigation into the alleged offence examined several witnesses, but curiously Subbamma, who is said to be the wife of A1 was not at all examined by the investigating officer to satisfy himself as to whether, in fact, the alleged mis-behaviour of the deceased with Subbamma in the Choultry on 13.12.2001 did in fact take place or not. Since the basis for suspecting the appellants about their involvement in the commission of offence is the incident which took place in the choultry during the night of 13.12.2001, the investigating officer has to satisfy himself as to whether, in fact, Subbamma and the deceased stayed in the said Choultry during the said night and whether there was any incident in the course of which the deceased mis-behaved with Subbamma. 21. 21. According to the appellants, they were arrested by the police on 10.01.2002, whereas according to the police, they arrested the appellants on 11.01.2002. However, the fact remains that on 12.02.2002 after examining Pedda Laxmaiah, the so called deceased and his brother China Laxmaiah and recording their sworn statements, the learned Sessions Judge Kurnool released the appellants. 22. Curiously, the investigating agency put forward a theory that basing on reliable information on 10.01.2002 at about 10 hours, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur and S.H.O., Miduthuru Police Station staff and Panchayatdars proceeded to Soma Company bus stop by the side of Miduthuru road and arrested the appellants, recorded their confessional statements under a cover of mahzar in the presence of panchayatdars and in pursuance of the confessional statements of appellants, A-2 led the police party and panchayatdars to the bushes in Alaganur Barakas fields, picked up a knife from the bush and handed over the same to the C.I. of Police stating that they cut the throat of the deceased with the said knife. 23. Apart from other things, the alleged factum of recovery of weapon of offence (knife) supposed to have been made in pursuance of disclosure statements made by the appellants purportedly under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is crucial to determine the falsity or otherwise of the investigation. The knife was allegedly produced by A2 voluntarily leading the police party and mediators to the bushes and picking up the knife therefrom and producing the same before the Circle Inspector of Police stating that they had cut the throat of the deceased with the said knife. The socalled recovery of knife in the manner stated hereinabove can form the sole basis for granting the relief prayed for by the appellants (writ petitioners). 24. Here, it is important to notice that we are not concerned with the admissibility or otherwise of the alleged confessional statements made by the appellants or A2 before the investigating officer and mediators. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the question as to whether the arrest and detention of the appellants is illegal or not. Here, it is important to notice that we are not concerned with the admissibility or otherwise of the alleged confessional statements made by the appellants or A2 before the investigating officer and mediators. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the question as to whether the arrest and detention of the appellants is illegal or not. We wish to make it clear that according to the investigating agency the appellants had in fact stated that they killed the deceased Pedda Laxmaiah, (who, in fact, is alive) with a knife and that they threw the knife in the bushes with which they had slit the throat of the deceased. From the point of view of the investigating agency, we have to necessarily visualize that the appellants have made such confessional statements and thereafter A2 led the police party and the mediators to the bushes in Alaganur Barakas fields and picked up a knife and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. At least, according to the police, all these things in fact, had occurred in their presence, that is the reason why they had incorporated the said facts in the record of investigation and they put forward a theory of recovery of a knife in pursuance of the confessional statements made by the appellants as mentioned above and the investigating officer wanted to prove the said recovery purportedly under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellants as one of pieces of evidence to substantiate the charge of murder. Butin reality Pedda Lakshmayya (the alleged deceased) was not at all killed and he is very much alive. That being the situation it is unimaginable that the appellant had made confessions to the Inspector of Police in the presence of mediator positively asserting that they had slit the throat of the deceased with knife, brought the dead-body and left the dead body in the field itself. 25. That being the situation it is unimaginable that the appellant had made confessions to the Inspector of Police in the presence of mediator positively asserting that they had slit the throat of the deceased with knife, brought the dead-body and left the dead body in the field itself. 25. Apart from other aspects, the alleged theory of recovery itself is thus sufficient proof of the fact that the Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police very well knew that the appellants are not the offenders and they were falsely implicating them in this case, obviously to give some conclusion of their own to the crime reported, most probably to satisfy the superiors that they had sincerely discharged their duties in detecting the offenders, who committed the ghastly murder. The alleged theory of recovery of knife basing on the confessions made by the appellants coupled with the fact that the deceased Pedda Laxmaiah in fact, was not murdered and was very much alive leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever in our mind that the Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police knowing fully well that the appellants are not offenders in the alleged crime involving the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, falsely implicated the appellants in this case, obviously for statistical purpose to close down the case somehow or the other without conducting any investigation. 26. Yet another crucial aspect in this case is that the police department deployed special team to trace out the identity of the deceased and also the details concerning the alleged offence including the identity of the culprits, a very extensive and intensified investigation had been done into the alleged occurrence. But, ultimately the special team, which investigated the offence after thorough investigation submitted a final report before the Magistrate stating that the offence is undetectable. From this, one can reach only one conclusion which is nothing but the police with a view to close down the case relating to the occurrence wherein a dead body was found, themselves created a false story knowing fully well that the appellants are not at all the offenders, resorted to the heinous act of falsely implicating innocent persons in a grave charge of murder of a particular individual, even though, in fact, the said individual has been very much alive. The way in which the investigation had proceeded which is indicated in the foregoing paragraphs and the manner in which the appellants were deliberately and purposely implicated in a grave charge of murder is a matter of serious concern for us and this case is one of the classic examples of some of unethical methods being employed by the investigating agency to somehow give their own conclusion to a serious crime without really conducting any investigation. 27. In HINDUSTAN TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LTD v STATE OF KERALA (1997) 11 SCC 623 in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus to produce two persons, the Supreme Court directed the District Judge, Ludhiana to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the affidavits and counter affidavits and submit a report as to the veracity of the statements made by either of the parties particularly in relation to the illegal detention of the aforementioned two persons. Thereafter on receiving the report of the District Judge, the Apex Court held that the two persons were wrongfully deprived of their right to personal liberty by the police authorities of the State of Punjab during the period from 09.08.1993 to 02.10.1993 and directed the State of Punjab to pay each of them a sum of Rs.10,000/-by way of compensation within a period of one month. The Supreme Court further made it clear that the payment of this amount by way of compensation would not preclude Daljit Saini and Omprakash from pursuing the remedy, civil as well as criminal, that is available to them in law in respect of their wrongful confinement during this period. 28. The Supreme Court further made it clear that the payment of this amount by way of compensation would not preclude Daljit Saini and Omprakash from pursuing the remedy, civil as well as criminal, that is available to them in law in respect of their wrongful confinement during this period. 28. Similarly in SANGANAGOUDA A.VEERANAGOUDA AND OTHERS v STATE OF KARNATAKA 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 293 (SC) = (2005)12 SCC 468 wherein one “V” was arrested in a murder case on the direction of Officer-in-charge of the police station and subsequently died by hanging himself in the police station, the Supreme Court considering the undisputed facts viz that at the relevant time A1 was in charge of the police station, A2 to A5 were working as police constables in the said police station, the injuries sustained by the deceased Guddappa to his death was caused in the said police station, the fact that the IO did not produce “V” before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours by his arrest as required under Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the death of the deceased has since occurred beyond 24 hours it would amount to wrongful confinement as contemplated under Section 348 IPC and accordingly upheld the order passed by the High Court. 29. In BHIM SINGH, MLA v STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS (1985)4 SCC 677 the Supreme Court while dealing with the case where a MLA was deliberately prevented from attending session of Legislative Assembly by arresting and illegally detaining him in the police custody deprecated mala fide conduct of police officers and casual and irresponsible attitude of Magistrate and Sub Judge of their collusion with police in passing orders of police remand against the MLA and strongly condemned the said act. The Apex Court held that the police officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens, their mala fide, high handed and authoritarian conduct in depriving the personal liberty of person has to be strongly condemned. The Apex Court went on to hold as follows: “That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar and Sebastian M Hongray V Union of India. The Apex Court went on to hold as follows: “That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah V. State of Bihar and Sebastian M Hongray V Union of India. When a person comes to us with the complaint tha he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh.” 30. In LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v M.K.GUPTA 1994 (1) An. W.R. 69 (CPA) = (1994)1 SCC 243 the Supreme Court held that when public servant by mala fide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes, injustice, harassment and agony to common man and renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, State or its instrumentality is duty bound to later recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned and accordingly directed the State to report compliance. 31. In JOGINDER KUMAR v STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS (1994) 4 SCC 260 = 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 9 (D.N.) a young advocate of 28 years, was called by the SSP, Ghaziabad, U.P was arrested and detained by the SSP. A habeas corpus petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held as follows: “The quality of a nation’s civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrest. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrest. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first- the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider.” The Supreme Court further held that “the arrest should not be merely on suspicion about the person’s complicity in the crime and the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and justification of such arrest on the basis of some investigation and the reasons for arrest must be recorded by the police officer in his diary and the arrest should normally be avoided except in cases of heinous crime.” 32. Keeping in mind the aforestated principles laid down by the Apex Court we, therefore, wish to state the facts and circumstances of some of the case dealt with by the Apex Court which are referred hereinabove are altogether different and therefore, the Apex Court in those cases ordered detailed enquiry to ascertain blameworthy conduct of the police and the Apex Court thought it fit before fastening any liability to have a report on the allegations. But, from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and from the material available on record, unhesitatingly we have arrived at a conclusion that the arrest and detention of the appellants is ex faci illegal and we may state that it will be a futile exercise to order detailed enquiry into the investigation conducted by the police. Despite having sufficient material to reach a finding that the arrest and detention caused by the police are illegal, if we direct further enquiry to be made into the allegations leveled against the investigating agency, it is nothing but diluting the issue and it may also afford an opportunity to the police to harass the witnesses to speak on their behalf. Therefore, we think it just and proper to record a finding since the material available on record in the facts and circumstances of the case, enables us to record a finding that the investigation conducted by the police is false to their own knowledge and that the arrest and detention of the appellants caused by the police are illegal. It is not proper on our part to protract the issue by ordering a detailed enquiry into the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. Basing on the above material, we arrive at a definite and positive conclusion that the investigation conducted by the police is false to their own knowledge and to somehow close the case file, they gave their own conclusion to the case by involving the appellants in a false charge of murder and the alleged deceased was in fact found to be very much alive. The police personnel concerned are, therefore, guilty of illegal arrest and wrongful detention of the appellants and also liable for the offence of wrongful confinement, which is punishable under Section 342 of IPC. 33. The Apex Court in NILABATI BEHERA ALIAS LAUTA BEHERA (THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE) v. STATE OF ORISSA AIR 1993 (SC) 1960 and in D.K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (1997) 1 SCC 416 has spelt out the principle on which the liability of the State arises in cases where the right to life and liberty of the citizens have been infringed by the public authorities and also the distinction between the liability of the State in such cases and liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. According to the Apex Court “the award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the Apex Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a remedy available in public law based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort.” 34. In NILABATI BEHERA case, theSupreme Court observed as follows: “We respectfully concur with the view that the court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Art.32, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on this Court to forge such new tools, which maybe necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which enables the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to this Court under Art.142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf. The contrary view would not merely render the court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage, but may, in certain situations, be an incentive to extinguish life, if for the extreme contravention the court is powerless to grant any relief against the State, except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence, and recovery of damages under private law, by the ordinary process. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more readily available when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies were more appropriate.” “We may, however, observe that the award of compensation in this proceeding would be taken into account for adjustment, in the event of any other proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of compensation on the same ground, so that the amount to this extent is not recovered by the petitioner twice over”. 35. Similarly, in D.K.BASU’s case referred supra, it is held as follows: “The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.” “The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit.” 36. Turning to the facts of the instant case under appeal, from the submissions made by both the learned counsel and from the material available on record, we reached a positive and irresistible conclusion that the police personnel who investigated into the alleged crime had acted in utter disregard of the Fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the action of the police in this case is so deliberate and they even invented a false story to give their own conclusion to the case reported. They went to the extent of falsely implicating the appellants introducing a false theory of recovery purportedly basing on the confessions made by the appellants, though as a matter of fact, no confessional statements were made at all at any time by the appellants before the investigating officer. They went to the extent of falsely implicating the appellants introducing a false theory of recovery purportedly basing on the confessions made by the appellants, though as a matter of fact, no confessional statements were made at all at any time by the appellants before the investigating officer. The bare facts, such as, the person who was allegedly murdered was ultimately found to be alive and that in spite of deploying special team to investigate into the cause of death of the person whose deadbody was found in the fields, even the identity of the person who was dead could not be established, the offenders could not be traced and ultimately the police had to close the case as undetectable by filing a final report before the Magistrate concerned. The present case reflects the methods adopted and standards possessed by our investigating agencies. Out of the issues, which causes much concern to us is the attitude of the police in inventing a false story, knowing fully well that the appellants to be innocent, implicating them in a grave charge of murder for the sole object of closing down the case file with some conclusion of their own claiming credit for successfully investigating into the crime. Nothing wrong, if the police are unable to detect the identity of the person dead and the identity of the offenders. In fact, ultimately, the police in this case in spite of their so-called thorough investigation, by the special team filed the final report stating that the offence is undetectable. In the instant case, the appellants were under detention pursuant to the arrest made by the police for a period of 32 days i.e. from 10.01.2002 to 12.02.2002. For the reasons stated by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the alleged arrest as well as the detention are illegal and moreover, the police very well knew that they were implicating innocent persons falsely in a grave charge of murder only for their statistical purpose to close down the file with some invented result. Closing down the case as undetectable may not be a lapse, but the deliberate conduct mentioned hereinabove attributable to the investigating agency clearly amounts to a criminal offence. 37. Closing down the case as undetectable may not be a lapse, but the deliberate conduct mentioned hereinabove attributable to the investigating agency clearly amounts to a criminal offence. 37. Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the State to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per day to each of the appellants, in other words, the State has to pay compensation of Rs.32,000/-to each of the appellants for causing their illegal arrest and wrongful detention in prison for a period of 32 days. The compensation shall be in addition to the compensation for which the appellants are entitled under private law remedy. We direct the authorities concerned to recover the compensation paid, from the police personnel who are responsible for illegal arrest and wrongful detention of the appellants. We also direct the State to pay a further amount of Rs.9,000/- to the appellants towards expenses defrayed by them in prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal. The amount of compensation and the cost shall be paid within 45 days from the date of the judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed.