JUDGMENT 1. To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body, it is starvation of soul, the dweller in the body. Mahatma Gandhi 2. The man was crying for liberty since last seven years. He was putting questions to God, What fault have I further committed that I am confined within four corners of the ward of the jail even after order of acquittal passed by the highest Court of the State? I have been exonerated of the death sentence but I am dying here inside jail every moment. Give me freeness of life. Give this only son of his aged parents opportunity to spend some time with them in their last days. 3. Having faced trial in the Court of Ad hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No. 179/74 of 2003 for offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of six persons namely Kalakara Barik, Sabitri Barik, Basanta Barik, Srikar Rout, Swadin Rout and Ketaki Barsatia on the fateful day of 8th January 2003, the petitioner was found guilty by the learned trial Court under section 302, I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 21.7.2004 and accordingly convicted of such offence and sentenced to be hanged till his death. He preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order of conviction before this Court which was registered as JCRLA No. 80 of 2004. The learned trial Court also submitted the proceedings to this Court for confirmation of the sentence under the provisions of section 366, Cr. P.C. and accordingly DSREF No. 3 of 2004 was registered. 4. This Hon’ble Court heard both the matters i.e., JCRLA No. 80 of 2004 and DSREF No. 3 of 2004 together and vide common judgment and order dated 19.9.2007 allowed JCRLA No. 80 of 2004 and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. While passing of order of acquittal, this Hon’ble Court held as follows:- "28. In the result, JCRLA No. 80 of 2004 succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-Duleswar Barik under Section 302, IPC are set aside. While passing of order of acquittal, this Hon’ble Court held as follows:- "28. In the result, JCRLA No. 80 of 2004 succeeds and the same is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-Duleswar Barik under Section 302, IPC are set aside. The accused-Duleswar Barik shall be examined by an expert, preferably, by a Professor of Department of Psychiatry of any of the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals in the State and if he certifies that it is safe to set the accused-Duleswar Barik at liberty, the said accused shall be set at liberty immediately thereafter. But if the said expert finds otherwise, then the accused Duleswar Barik shall be rendered necessary treatment as an indoor patient in any of the said Medical Colleges and Hospitals. DSREF No. 3 of 2004 is accordingly answered. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 15.1.2003 in connection with the case i.e., Kinjirkela P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 dated 9.1.2003 under section 302, I.P.C. and produced in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Sundargarh and not only during investigation and trial of the case but also during pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appellant was in custody and even after his order of acquittal passed by this Court, he was not released from custody. 6. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 115 of 2014 on 18.8.2014 praying for his release from jail custody for the betterment of his health condition or to pass any appropriate orders which would be deemed fit and proper. Misc. Case No. 115 of 2014 was converted to W.P. (C) No. 18657 of 2014 on the petition filed by the petitioner. 7. The father of the petitioner has sworn affidavit in the petition wherein he has referred to the order dated 6.3.2009 of this Court passed in JCRLA No. 80 of 2004. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- Perused the letter dated 24th of January, 2009 of the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur, seeking orders from this Court regarding further treatment of the appellant-Duleswar Barik and his release from jail custody. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- Perused the letter dated 24th of January, 2009 of the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur, seeking orders from this Court regarding further treatment of the appellant-Duleswar Barik and his release from jail custody. In view of the aforesaid suggestion of the Jail Superintendent that a second opinion can be sought for from outside the State and preferably from NIMHANS, Bangalore, and as Sri Goutam Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it will take some time to send the appellant to the aforesaid suggested institute and as the appellant is in jail custody, we direct that before referring the appellant to NIMHANS, a second opinion shall be taken from Psychiatry Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and if the doctor advises that the appellant can be treated in the psychiatry, Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, appropriate arrangement shall be made by the jail authority for brining the appellant to S.C.B. Medical College for his treatment within a period of one month from today. In the event the appellant will undergo treatment at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, adequate security shall be provided by the State to the appellant at the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital. The father of appellant in the hospital can visit the appellant on permission by the Head of the concerned Department. 8. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for his better treatment and his mental condition has also improved and he is under the supervision of psychiatrist, Circle Jail, Sambalpur. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner is willing to take him to custody and provide proper treatment to him and accordingly prayer was made to hand over the petitioner to him and to grant him liberty. It is further stated that the mental condition of the petitioner is good and he is regularly taking medicine as prescribed by the doctor. The petitioner undertook to behave properly to others and not to create any disturbance in the society, if he is released from jail custody. It is further stated that the petitioner is the only son of his parents who are aged persons and he is searching for the love and affection which would be better provided by his parents. The petitioner undertook to behave properly to others and not to create any disturbance in the society, if he is released from jail custody. It is further stated that the petitioner is the only son of his parents who are aged persons and he is searching for the love and affection which would be better provided by his parents. It is further indicated that the State has not taken any steps for treatment of the petitioner at NIMHANS, Bangalore. 9. The State filed the counter-affidavit through Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Sambalpur indicating therein that this Court has acquitted the petitioner and though his conviction was set aside but no release order was issued to the jail authority for his release from jail custody. It is further submitted that since no release order was received either from this Court or from the trial Court, jail authority could not release the petitioner. It is further stated that on 3.2.2007 the petitioner was sent to VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla from Sundargarh District Jail and was admitted in the said hospital from 3.10.2007 to 6.10.2007 and on discharge from the hospital, the HOD of Psychiatry Department suggested for his treatment in the Department of Psychiatry, MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. The petitioner was taken to the said hospital at Berhampur on 10.10.2007 and was admitted in the Department of Psychiatry as an indoor patient. On discharge, the Professor of Department of Psychiatry advised that the petitioner needs psychiatric treatment as an indoor patient under the supervision of a psychiatrist for at least one year, followed by further regular consultation by a psychiatrist to decide the need of future treatment for one or two more years to prevent the possibility of emergence of impulsive and episodic abnormal behaviour. It is further submitted that on 18.11.2007 the petitioner was received at Circle Jail, Sambalpur from Sundargarh District Jail for his prolonged psychiatric treatment in the jail hospital as one regular psychiatrist is posted at Circle jail, Sambalpur for treatment of psychiatric prisoners. The petitioner was stated to have received treatment at Circle Jail, Sambalpur as per the advice of Professor of Department of Psychiatry of MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur under the supervision of psychiatrist of the jail as an indoor patient in jail hospital. 10. The petitioner was stated to have received treatment at Circle Jail, Sambalpur as per the advice of Professor of Department of Psychiatry of MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur under the supervision of psychiatrist of the jail as an indoor patient in jail hospital. 10. It is further stated that on 05.11.2008 as per the advice of psychiatrist of Circle Jail, Sambalpur, the petitioner was taken to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla and examined in the Psychiatry Department vide OPD No. 2815 dated 5.11.2008. Necessary investigation was conducted and on the basis of investigation, the Professor of Department of Psychiatry of VSS Medical College & Hospital, Burla opined in his report dated 18.12.2008 that recurrence of violence in phase of ictal or epileptic psychosis is not ruled out. Regular follow up and continuous treatment was advised to the petitioner at least for further three years. He also suggested that, it is not safe to set the patient at liberty. Further, in the said report the doctor suggested for examination of the petitioner outside the State preferably at NIMHANS, Bangalore pertaining to his illness. On 29.12.2008 the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur wrote letter to learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Sundargarh for order pertaining to treatment and detention of the petitioner as per the advice of Associate Professor of Psychiatry Department of V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla for his treatment in NIMHANS, Bangalore. On 5.1.2009 the learned Ad hoc Addl. Session Judge, Sundargarh advised Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur to move this Court and seek necessary permission so as to provide necessary treatment to the petitioner at NIMHANS, Bangalore as advised by the Associate Professor, Department of psychiatry of VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. On 24.1.2009 a petition of Sri Rangaballav Barik, father of the petitioner addressed to this Court requesting for release of his son from jail was received and the same was submitted to the Registrar of this Court for order. On 24.1.2009 a petition of Sri Rangaballav Barik, father of the petitioner addressed to this Court requesting for release of his son from jail was received and the same was submitted to the Registrar of this Court for order. It is further submitted that Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Sambalpur moved this Court praying for release of the petitioner writing letter to the Registrar of this Court vide Letter No. 464 dated 24.1.2009 and this Court by order dated 6.3.2009 while not passing any order for release of the petitioner from jail directed the jail authority to provide treatment to the petitioner in Psychiatry Department of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and to obtain second opinion from Professor of Psychiatry before referring him to NIMHANS, Bangalore. It is further submitted that on 11.01.2010 as per the order of this Court, the petitioner was taken to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and was admitted in the Psychiatry, Mental Health Institute vide indoor registration No. 1449 dated 11.1.2010 and required treatment was provided to him. On discharge of the petitioner from S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, the Professor & HOD Psychiatry, Mental Health Institute recommended for third opinion regarding his illness from NIMHANS, Bangalore. Further he advised to continue Psychiatry medicines for at least three years to prevent recurrence. On 31.3.2010 the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Sambalpur wrote letter to the Addl. D.G. of Police-cum-Inspector General of Prisons and Director of Correctional Services, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for necessary orders and placement of funds for treatment of the petitioner at NIMHANS, Bangalore. 11. It is further stated that on 23.2.2011 Senior Superintendent Circle Jail, Sambalpur insisted the father of the petitioner to file petition before this Court for release of his son from jail custody. Accordingly Misc. Case No. 1 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner with the affidavit of his father praying for release of petitioner from jail custody. However, this Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner as there was no certificate from Professor of Psychiatry as to whether it is safe to set the petitioner at liberty as contained in paragraph 28 of the judgment dated 19.9.2007 by this Court rendered to in DSREF No. 3 of 2014. 12. However, this Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner as there was no certificate from Professor of Psychiatry as to whether it is safe to set the petitioner at liberty as contained in paragraph 28 of the judgment dated 19.9.2007 by this Court rendered to in DSREF No. 3 of 2014. 12. It is further stated that on 7.7.2013 the petitioner was transferred to Choudwar Circle jail, Cuttack to facilitate his treatment at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as per the advice of Professor in Psychiatry, Mental Health Institution, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. On 19.7.2013 the petitioner was presented before the concerned department where he was advised for hospitalization along with escort party in order to review neurological evaluation and investigation. On 6.11.2013, the petitioner was admitted in the Mental Health Institute of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and discharged on 16.12.2013. The petitioner was then taken to Choudwar Jail with opinion of the treating physician that the petitioner was observed to be stable and the epileptic state was stable and there was no psycho pathology except mild cognitive deficiency. It was further observed that good offices of prison authority and this Court might think in the lines of social rehabilitation. Opinion was given with suggestion that, review must be done in very six months. On 15.1.2014 the petitioner along with necessary medical papers containing the above opinion was received at Circle Jail, Sambalpur. It is further stated that after his return from Circle Jail, Cuttack, the petitioner was kept in the Jail custody and he was taking medicines as per the advice of Professor, Psychiatry of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack under supervision of jail psychiatrist. 13. It is further contended on behalf of the State that the incarceration of the petitioner even after the order of acquittal was within the knowledge of this Court as well as the learned trial Court and when a letter was received from the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Sambalpur seeking orders from this Court regarding further treatment of the petitioner and for his release from jail custody, this Court vide order dated 6.3.2009 directed that before referring the petitioner to NIMHANS, a second opinion shall be taken from the Psychiatric Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, inter alia, with other directions. It is further stated that since the State acted as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the question of illegal detention does not arise. It is further stated that jail authorities cannot release a convict without receiving a warrant of release on appeal and since no release order was received by the jail authorities, it cannot be said that there was any fault or omission committed by them in not releasing the petitioner. 14. During argument when it was contended before us that the detention of the petitioner in confinement is wholly illegal and against all canons of judicial discipline and it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioner is in illegal confinement for seven years even after acquittal order dated 19.9.2007, we directed vide order dated 1.9.2014 for personal presence of the petitioner who was in confinement in District Jail, Sambalpur. 15. In pursuance to our direction, the petitioner was produced before us on 2.9.2014 and on preliminary enquiry to know about his mental faculty and ailment, we found that he is a completely sane person. We examined the petitioner in open Court and our questions put to him and the answers given by the petitioner which were recorded in Oriya, the English translation of which is reproduced herein-below:- Q. What is your name? A. My name is Duleswar Barik. Q. What is your fathers name? A. My fathers name is Rangaballav Barik. Q. What is your age? A. My age is 36 years. Q. Where is your house? A. My house is at Golasahi, P.S. Kinjhirikela, District Sundargarh. Q. How have you been brought from District Jail, Sundargarh to the High Court? A. I have been brought by the Police in their vehicle. Q. Which police has brought you? A. Havildar P. Munda. Q. How did you come to know about the name of the police officer? A. By reading from the label on his shirt. Q. In which Ward were you staying? A. I was staying in Ward No. 11 of the jail. Q. What is your educational qualification? A. I have read upto +3 Arts. Q. In which college were you reading? A. I was reading in Government College, Sundargarh. Q. What were your subjects? A. My subjects were History, Political Science and Economics. Q. How many members are there in your family? Q. What is your educational qualification? A. I have read upto +3 Arts. Q. In which college were you reading? A. I was reading in Government College, Sundargarh. Q. What were your subjects? A. My subjects were History, Political Science and Economics. Q. How many members are there in your family? A. My family consists of myself, my parents and my sister who is already married. Q. Who has married to your sister? A. My sister has married to a cultivator. Q. Have you got any brothers? A. No. I have no brothers. Q. Have you been intimated that you have been acquitted in this case? A. No. Nobody has intimated me. Q. Do you want to stay with your family? A. Yes. I want to stay with my family. Q. Where were you treated in the jail for any disease? A. Yes, I was taken to Cuttack and Berhampur. Q. How many days were you treated at Cuttack and Berhampur? A. Yes, I was treated for 22 days in Berhampur and 30 days in Cuttack at the first instance and subsequently in 2013, I was treated for a month and six days. Q. Were you given any medicine after 2013? A. I was given two tablets at 11 a.m. and 3 tablets at about 5 p.m. Q. Are you taking medicine now? A. Yes, I am taking medicine. Q. Are you allotted any work inside the jail? A. No. I have not been given any work. Q. How many prisoners were staying with you in Ward No. 11? A. About 20 to 22 prisoners were staying with me and in between there use to be change of prisoners. Q. What will you do after being released from jail? A. I will do a job. Q. Where have you brought today? A. I have brought to the High Court. Q. What have you taken today? A. I have taken rice, dal and curry. Q. What is your date of birth? A. My date of birth is 27.7.1979. 16. From the above questions we put to the petitioner and from the replies given by him, we found that he was never hesitate in giving any reply and as soon as a question was asked, he gave us an instant reply and therefore we have no doubts in our mind that the petitioner is not suffering from any mental ailment. 17. 17. In the order dated 2.9.2014, we observed as follows:- In such a view, since we find that a sane man who is not dangerous to the society at all, has been illegally detained by the authorities inside the jail and was robbed of all the fruits of life for a long period of 7 years, in flagrant violation of Section 362, Cr. P.C. and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, we would like to get him adequate compensate for his illegal confinement, while directing for his release forthwith. For that, we have been assisted by learned Government Advocate at our request. The learned Government Advocate wants to address on the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded. At the request of learned Government Advocate, we defer this matter for tomorrow immediately after lunch. 18. On 3.9.2014 the case was taken up and the petitioner was present before us. The father and brother-in-law of the petitioner were also present on that day and we questioned both of them and they stated before us that they are ready to take care of the petitioner and would keep him with love and affection. The petitioner also expressed his desire to go and live with his family and accordingly we set him at liberty. Since the petitioner was illegally detained inside the jail in Ward No. 11 in spite of the fact that he was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment and order dated 19.9.2007, we proceeded to determine the compensation to be awarded in favour of the petitioner for such illegal detention. The learned Advocate General prayed before the Court to give him an opportunity to file an objection before determining the compensation and accordingly we permitted him to file objection. We also directed by order dated 3.9.2014 to the District Jail Superintendent, Sambalpur to hand over the entire medical papers to the petitioner so that he can produce it before Superintendent, V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, Sambalpur and further directed the Superintendent to examine the petitioner and make provisions for all his treatment free of cost including the medicines. We also directed Kinjirikela Police Station to make visit to the residence of the petitioner regularly once in two weeks to keep a watch for his welfare. 19. We also directed Kinjirikela Police Station to make visit to the residence of the petitioner regularly once in two weeks to keep a watch for his welfare. 19. The judgment of this Court dated 19.9.2007 passed in JCRLA No. 80 of 2004 and DSREF No. 3 of 2004 is very clear. While acquitting the petitioner of the charge under section 302, IPC and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed there under by the learned trial court, it was directed that the petitioner shall be examined by an expert, preferably, by a Professor of the Department of Psychiatry of any of the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals in the State and if he certifies that it is safe to set the petitioner at liberty, he shall be set at liberty immediately thereafter and if the expert finds otherwise then the petitioner shall be rendered necessary treatment as an indoor patient in any of the Medical Colleges and Hospitals. 20. There was no direction to keep the petitioner in jail custody even if the expert gives negative opinion regarding his release. In spite of that he was kept in District Jail, Sambalpur in Ward No. 11 with other prisoners. The petitioner was never taken to NIMHANS, Bangalore for treatment in spite of the advice given by the Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatrist, V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla. This Court vide order dated 6.3.2009 directed to take second opinion from the Psychiatric Department, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack before referring the appellant to NIMHANS. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner was admitted in the Psychiatrist Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as an indoor patient and required treatment was provided and he was discharged. He drew our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the State and submitted that the Professor and HOD, Psychiatrics, Mental Health Institute, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, in his letter dated 3.2.2010 which is annexed as Annexure-J has observed as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. I recommend for the 3rd opinion/final opinion which can be sought from outside the State preferably National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, NIMHANS, Bengaluru (Bangalore-20, Karnataka) which is the highest centre of Neurosciences in our country. I recommend for the 3rd opinion/final opinion which can be sought from outside the State preferably National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, NIMHANS, Bengaluru (Bangalore-20, Karnataka) which is the highest centre of Neurosciences in our country. Further investigation can be done for Duleswar Barik to pin point diagnosis and assessment with availability of advanced neuro-imaging techniques like functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) functional Position Emmition Tomography (PET) and single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT), national and international expert in the field of Neuro-psychiatry are available in this elite centre. 21. It is pertinent to note that the review report of the mental status examination of the petitioner dated 16.12.2013 which was conducted, it was observed as follows:- Sri Duleswar Barik is observed to be stable. Awake Electro Encephalogram record shows background (10-12) H2 alpha activity without any epileptic discharge. The Epileptic State is stable and observed to be episode free for last 3 years. The present Mental Status Examinations have revealed no psychopathology except mild cognitive deficiency. Good offices of prison authorities and respected Hon’ble High Court may think in the lines of social rehabilitation. 22. Giving our anxious considerations to all the medical documents and the opinion of the experts and after our long query to the petitioner in open Court, we are constrained to hold that there was absolutely no necessity to curtail the liberty of the petitioner and to confine him in jail custody in Ward No. 11 with other convicts for so many years which is completely contrary to the observations made in judgment and order of acquittal. The suggestion given by the medical experts on number of occasions to take the petitioner to NIMHANS, Bangalore for taking a final opinion was also not carried out by the State. The act of the State and the jail authority amounts to flagrant violation of the Fundamental Right of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A person like the petitioner although may be suffering for some mental ailment for some time, once cured and acquitted by a Court of law, could not have been confined in jail by any stretch of imagination. 23. Before coming to decide the quantum of compensation we want to highlight another instance of careless degrading apathetical attitude of the State. A person like the petitioner although may be suffering for some mental ailment for some time, once cured and acquitted by a Court of law, could not have been confined in jail by any stretch of imagination. 23. Before coming to decide the quantum of compensation we want to highlight another instance of careless degrading apathetical attitude of the State. We took up the matter on 2.9.2014 and directed the petitioner to be produced on 3.9.2014 and further directed the police party to take the petitioner to DCP, Cuttack who would make proper arrangement for his stay till 3.9.2014. The petitioner was taken to Lalbag Police Station and kept there throughout the night for which we expressed our dismay and anguish against the State for not keeping the petitioner at a more dignified place than a police station. 24. There is no doubt that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can award compensation for the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution by the State machinery. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person from any incarceration or otherwise. It means a corpus free of all shackles. A free man can do what he likes, he can live the way he pleases. We are quite conscious that liberty cannot stand alone but must be paired with companion virtue, liberty and morality, liberty and law, liberty and justice, liberty and common good, liberty and responsibility which are concomitants for orderly progress and social stability. The expression procedure established by law as appears in Article 21 of Constitution of India has come to be understood to mean, just procedure prescribed by laws of the State. 25. In case of Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1086 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "8. That takes us to the question as to how the grave injustice which has been perpetrated upon the petitioner can be rectified, insofar as it lies within our power to do in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. That takes us to the question as to how the grave injustice which has been perpetrated upon the petitioner can be rectified, insofar as it lies within our power to do in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. That Article confers power on the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III is guaranteed, that is to say, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a fundamental right. 9. It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant case is illustrative of such cases. The petitioner was detained illegally in the prison for over fourteen years after his acquittal in a full-dressed trial. He filed a Habeas Corpus petition in this Court for his release from illegal detention. He obtained that relief, our finding being that his detention in the prison after his acquittal was wholly unjustified. He contends that he is entitled to be compensated for his illegal detention and that we ought to pass appropriate order for the payment of compensation in this Habeas Corpus petition itself. 10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the State Government. Happily, the States Counsel has not raised that objection. 10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the State Government. Happily, the States Counsel has not raised that objection. The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well-known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioners rights. It may have recourse against those officers. 11. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioners rights. It may have recourse against those officers. 11. Taking into consideration that great harm done to the petitioner by the Government of Bihar, we are of the opinion that, as an interim measure, the State must pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty-thousand) in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) already paid by it. The amount shall be paid within two weeks from today. The Government of Bihar agrees to make the payment though, we must clarify, our order is not based on their consent. 12. This order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. The order of compensation passed by us is, as we said above, in the nature of a palliative. We cannot leave the petitioner penniless until the end of his suit, the many appeals and the execution proceedings. A full-dressed debate on the nice points of fact and law which takes place leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such a suit by the poor Rudul Sah. The Leviathan will have liberty to raise those points in that suit. Until then, we hope, there will be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or elsewhere. 26. This principle has been consistently followed in the subsequent line of cases i.e. Sebastian M. Hongray vs. Union of India, 1984 Cri. L.J. 830 : AIR 1984 SC 1026 ; Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, 1986 Cri. L.J. 192 : AIR 1986 SC 494 ; Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Another vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Another, (1989) 4 SCC 730 ; State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373 : 1991 AIR SCW 871; Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1987 Cri. L.J. 192 : AIR 1986 SC 494 ; Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Another vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Another, (1989) 4 SCC 730 ; State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373 : 1991 AIR SCW 871; Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1987 Cri. L.J. 528 : AIR 1987 SC 355 ; Saheli, A Women Resources Center and Others vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters and Others, AIR 1990 SC 513 ; Arvinder Singh Bagga vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1995 SC 117 ; P. Rathinam vs. Union of India and Others, In Re Death of Sawindra Singh Grover, AIR 1994 SC 1844 ; Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1995 Cri. L.J. 3235 : AIR 1995 SC 1949 ; D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 Cri. L.J. 743 : AIR 1997 SC 610 ; Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. Chandrima Das and Others, 2000 Cri. L.J. 1473 : AIR 2000 SC 988 . 27. Even though no specific prayer regarding grant of compensation has been made in the Writ Petition but since that prayer was pressed vociferously and also in view of there being a prayer to pass any appropriate orders as think deem fit and proper, this Court possesses no dearth of power in the matter of framing writs to suit the exigencies of a particular case and not to throw out a case simply on the ground that a proper writ or direction had not been prayed for albeit argued and pressed. Absence of a specific prayer claiming compensation is immaterial to deny the relief to do complete justice between the parties. There is no magic in use of a formula and a relief should not be denied on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds. (Ref-Vol.75 (1993) Cuttack Law Times 352 : ( AIR 1993 Ori 180 ), State of Orissa v. Janamohan Das). 28. The petitioner lost prime period of his life behind the bars. He was acquitted by the judgment of this Court on 19.09.2007 but even thereafter he remained behind the bars for about seven years. He was a not free man till he was finally released on 3.9.2014 as per our orders. He is an educated man who has read up to graduation. He was acquitted by the judgment of this Court on 19.09.2007 but even thereafter he remained behind the bars for about seven years. He was a not free man till he was finally released on 3.9.2014 as per our orders. He is an educated man who has read up to graduation. He is the only son of his aged parents who was illegally robbed off with the love and affection of his family and friends for such a long tormented period. He is now also interested for a job. It cannot be said that since the petitioner is poor, his compensation should also be poorly assessed. It cannot be gainsaid that if the petitioner would have been allowed to become free earlier, he could have established himself as an important member of the community in the meantime and would have recovered much more quicker in a caring and healthy atmosphere and we are of further view that the State is liable to pay compensation for the illegal and unjustified detention of the petitioner Duleswar Barik inside jail barrack. Pondering over the issue, we find uncountable number of reasons to award an adequate compensation to petitioner Duleswar Barik for scuttling down his human rights and freedom, which we on the facts and circumstances quantify as Rs. 20,000,00/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) and accordingly we direct the State to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of bank draft of a nationalised bank drawn in the name of petitioner Duleswar Barik with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from today. After the aforesaid deposit is made, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court will issue notice to the petitioner to appear before him along with his father. If the Registrar (Judicial) is satisfied about the identity of the petitioner, he shall got open a fixed deposit account in the name of petitioner in any nationalised bank situated nearer to the village of the petitioner and shall invest 75% of the said amount in fixed deposit for a period of five years in the name of the petitioner Duleswar Barik. The petitioner will be allowed to draw the interest accrued on the aforesaid fixed deposit every month. After maturity of the fixed deposit, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount due. 29. With directions as above, the writ application is finally disposed of. Order accordingly.