JUDGMENT : 1. By means of filing this writ petition under Articles 14, 16 & 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Kanubhai Manilal Patel, resident of C 1, New Bhoomika Apartment, K.K. Nagar Cross Roads, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs : “[b] to allow this Special Criminal Application by issuing a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent no. 2 to make appropriate orders for making departmental enquiry and proceedings in connection with the harassment caused to the present petitioner and mental agony unbearable hardship faced by the petitioner and family members of the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 to 7 may be held liable to make exemplary compensation as ordered and held by this Hon’ble Court; as deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; [c] to direct the respondent no.8 to produce all documentary evidence in respect of the complaint filed before IGI Police Station, Delhi, being No. 1 of 1996 against Kanubhai Manilal Patel in the facts of the present case; [d] pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to forthwith seize the record lying with the Kalupur Police Station in respect of the complaint, being CR No. I-145 of 1996, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of this case are that one complaint, being C.R. No. I-1/1996 came to be registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against one Kanubhai Manilal Patel, resident of Neminath Society, House No. 8/46, Ranip, Ahmedabad. That, Delhi Police with the help of Sabarmati Police, arrested the said Kanubhai Manilal Patel and produced him before the learned Magistrate Court no.2, Ahmedabad and sought his remand, which was granted and thereafter, as the custody of accused was handed over to Delhi Police and the Delhi Police intended to move him from Ahmedabad to Delhi, they stayed at Yamuna Guest House at Ahmedabad. That, somehow the said accused managed to escape from the custody of Delhi Police and pursuant to this, a complaint came to be lodged against him before Kalupur Police Station, being C.R. No. I-145 of 1996 i.e., against the said Kanubhai Manilal Patel for an offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. Thereafter, one complaint, being CR No. I-34 of 2005 was registered with DCB Police Station on 12.08.2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B IPC against the present petitioner namely Mr. Kanubhai Manilal Patel, resident of C-1, New Bhumika Apartment, KK Nagar Cross Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad and the present petitioner came to be arrested and sent for police remand and thereafter, when he was in Sabarmati Jail under judicial custody, Officers of Kalupur Police Station -respondents no. 3 to 7 visited Sabarmati Central Jail for taking finger print of the petitioner and informed him that he will be sent to Tihar Jail as his name is similar to the accused of C.R. No. I-1/1996 and demanded Rs. 50,000/- to settle the matter. That, on 18th August 2005, the respondent no. 4 wrongly produced the petitioner before learned Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad in connection with FIR, being C.R. No. I-145 of 1996 by way of transfer warrant and thereafter, the petitioner came to be released on bail on a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- by learned Magistrate. The petitioner was again sent to the judicial custody at Sabarmati Jail in connection with C.R. No. I-34 of 2005. That, Delhi police took the custody of the petitioner from Sabarmati Central Jail and moved him to Delhi on 07.09.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate, Delhi. Learned Magistrate, Delhi ordered Investigating Officer to verify identity of the petitioner with regard to C.R. No. I-1/1996. That, investigating officer found that the petitioner is not the same person, as accused of C.R. No. I-1/1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from C.R. No. I-1/1996 by the learned Magistrate, Delhi on the report of the Investigating Officer and ordered to send him back at Sabarmati Jail. Thereafter, on 14.12.2005, this Court released the petitioner on regular bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14314 of 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from C.R. No. I-1/1996 by the learned Magistrate, Delhi on the report of the Investigating Officer and ordered to send him back at Sabarmati Jail. Thereafter, on 14.12.2005, this Court released the petitioner on regular bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14314 of 2005. That, on 12.01.2006, the petitioner made a detailed representation regarding his illegal detention, physical and mental torture made by the officers of Kalupur Police Station before Additional Police Commissioner, Shahibaug, DSP Ahmedabad, Supdt. of Police, Ahmedabad and Chairman of Human Rights Commission, New Delhi and in this connection, the petitioner sought relief mentioned in prayer clause of this petition. As no response was received by the petitioner nor any action was taken by the respondent concerned, this petition is filed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. Nobody remained present on behalf of respondent no.8 in the matter. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is very unfortunate that the officers were though aware about everything, still however, under the guise and as their illegal demand was not fulfilled by the petitioner, a portrait of the petitioner was the accused and handed over to Delhi police and his family was left with no alternate but to join Delhi Police from Ahmedabad to Delhi, stayed there for about 22 days, incurred huge expenses and then ultimately Delhi police when found that he was not accused of CR No. I-145 of 1996 filed before Kalupur Police Station by one Shri Brijmohan Baburam Sharma, New Police Line King way, Delhi, who is serving as PSI at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner that in connection with an offence, being C.R No. I-1 of 1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station, New Delhi against one Kanubhai Manilal Patel, resident of House No. B/46, Neminath Society, Ranip, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC, sleuths from Delhi Police arrested the said accused from his residence. Record of the said accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel, his residential proof, age, etc., was very much available with Delhi Police officials at the time of his arrest. Record of the said accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel, his residential proof, age, etc., was very much available with Delhi Police officials at the time of his arrest. The said Kanubhai Manilal Patel managed to escape from the custody of Delhi Police and for which a separate complaint came to be lodged before Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad, being I-C.R No. 145 of 1996. That, in the meantime, in context of a complaint, being C.R No. I-34 of 2005 registered with DCP Police Station against the present petitioner, for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, he came to be arrested on 12th August 2005 and confined after Police remand at Sabarmati Jail. That, during and after his remand period, substantial amount was demanded from the petitioner. That, on 16th August 2005, the officers of Kalupur Police Station came at Central Jail, being associates of the respondents no. 3 to 7 – Kumpavat and Baranda for the purpose of taking finger prints. That, the said Shri Baranda who took the petitioner for the purpose of finger print, informed him that his name is similar to one accused of FIR No. 1 of 1996, and now his custody would be transferred from Sabarmati to Tihar Jail, Delhi and therefore, if an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is given, the matter can be solved, otherwise the petitioner would have to face serious consequences. 4.2 Learned advocate further submitted that physical and mental torture and threats of dire consequences were administered upon the petitioner, since he could not fulfill the illegal demand of gratification made by these sleuths. That, the family members of the petitioner tried their level best to distinguish the identify of the petitioner with that of the accused of C.R No. 1 of 1996 registered with IGI Police Station, Delhi, however, all efforts made at their end failed. That, those details and relevant proof provided to the police officers were not taken at all into consideration and resultantly, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate at Ahmedabad by submitting a production report dated 18th August 2005 by the Police Sub-Inspector Shri HR Baranda wherein arrest of the petitioner was shown in respect of an offence registered with Kalupur Police Station, being C.R No. I-145 of 1996 under Section 224 IPC and in the production report itself, the address of the petitioner has been shown as “Bhoomika Apartment”. That, in pursuance to the said action, the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail on 18th August 2005 which came to be granted on the very same day by the competent Court of law on furnishing a bail bond by the petitioner. That thereafter, sleuths of Kalupur Police Station informed Delhi Police Station that the accused of C.R No. 1 of 1996 is arrested by them and they can take custody of the accused. That, in pursuance to such an intimation, custody of the petitioner was transferred from Central Jail, Sabarmati to Delhi where initially he produced before the Magistrate and housed at Tihar Jail, where he stayed as an inmate for about 22 days. It is due to investigation made at the end of Delhi Police that it revealed that the petitioner was not the same accused, who came to be arraigned in connection with I-C.R No. 1 of 1996. The said conduct of the police officers was highly deprecated by the Court. It is submitted that all this situation was created on account of willful, deliberate default on the part of the respondents no. 3 to 7 herein just because their illegal demand was not satisfied by the present petitioner. 4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner also pointed out to this Court that in connection with an offence, being CR No. I-34 of 2005, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Oral Order dated 14th December 2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14314 of 2005. 4.4 Shri Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the detailed representations made by the petitioner to various authorities on 12th January 2006, but no action was taken against the concerned. Hence, it was urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner to pass appropriate orders against respondents no. 3 to 7 by holding that the petitioner is entitled to compensation [to be borne by the respondents no. 3 to 7 herein] for his wrong confinement in judicial custody for a period of 22 days in connection with an offence, being C.R No. 1 of 1996 and/or for an offence, being C.R No. I 145/1996, and also appropriate action deserves to be taken against them by the respondent no. 2 herein in this regard. 5. Per contra, Mr. 3 to 7 herein] for his wrong confinement in judicial custody for a period of 22 days in connection with an offence, being C.R No. 1 of 1996 and/or for an offence, being C.R No. I 145/1996, and also appropriate action deserves to be taken against them by the respondent no. 2 herein in this regard. 5. Per contra, Mr. KL Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1-State has opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and invited attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 and submitted that initially, the petitioner, who was arrested in connection with C.R. No. I-145/1996 registered with Kalupur Police Station for only one day and he was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 16, and released on bail on 18th August 2005. That, he was arrested because of similar modus operandi of same name and age. No proof of identification, photographs were produced by Delhi Police in connection with C.R. No. I-145 of 1996. That, a report under Section 169 CrPC was submitted in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for discharge of the accused, which was allowed accordingly and the petitioner was discharged from the offence. That, illegal detention, if any, may be said to be of one day only, without any mala fide intention on the part of the Police Officers. That, there was no further intention to keep the applicant in judicial custody without any reasons, as Delhi Police had informed Kalupur Police to obtain custody of the petitioner through transfer warrant and his custody was taken by Delhi Police for further interrogation. That, no illegal detention can be said to be of the petitioner, as argued by learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also invited attention towards affidavit-in-rely filed by Mr. I.M. Kumpavat , Police Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City and requested to dismiss the present petition, as he is not entitled to get any relief, as sought for in this petition. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP Mr. I.M. Kumpavat , Police Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City and requested to dismiss the present petition, as he is not entitled to get any relief, as sought for in this petition. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent-State and material produced on record, it would be apposite to note that this Court [Coram : CK Buch, J., as he then was], while issuing notice to the otherside vide Oral Order dated 21st February 2016, directed the respondents no. 3 & 4 herein to file their reply affidavits qua the allegations made against them in the petition as well as the representation made by the petitioner dated 10th January 2006, else the Court would be compelled to pass appropriate orders to register an FIR against them with Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station in respect of asking for illegal gratification and to hand over the investigation of the crime to the highest officer of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, on a plea of learned APP, time to file affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the concerned respondents was repeatedly granted by this Court and ultimately, by virtue of an Oral Order dated 24th January 2013, this Court [Coram : G.R Udhwani, J.] has observed thus:– “1. The petitioner has come out with a case that the respondents No. 3 and 4, who were in-charge of investigation of a case in which the petitioner was arrested and who were assisted by respondents No.5, 6 and 7, had falsely implicated the petitioner as another person having same name who was involved in First Crime Registration No. 1 of 1996, and who, while being transferred to Delhi police where he was required had escaped from the custody. As the said person escaped, a criminal case being C.R. No. I – 145 of 1996 was registered against him. After the petitioner arrest, he was transferred to Delhi police as if the petitioner was a person accused in the above two cases. As the said person escaped, a criminal case being C.R. No. I – 145 of 1996 was registered against him. After the petitioner arrest, he was transferred to Delhi police as if the petitioner was a person accused in the above two cases. It is also stated that ultimately when the petitioner urged before the Court at Delhi that he was not the person the Delhi police was looking for, an inquiry was ordered by the learned Magistrate and report was submitted corroborating the say of the petitioner that he was not the same person involved in the above said cases. He was, therefore, ultimately released and hence filed this revision application for appropriate reliefs including compensation for his wrongful confinement on the ground that he was deliberately wrongfully confined, as neither he nor the members of his family acceded to the demand of illegal gratification by respondents No.3 and 4. 2. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by one Haksibhai Rahajibhai Baranda, Retired Police Sub- Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad explaining the circumstances under which the petitioner was arrested and subsequently set free. In his affidavit, it is stated that the statement of identity of the arrestee Kanubhai who was arrested in the above two cases and was wanted, is in possession of Delhi police. 3. It is, however, not disputed by the respondents that custody of the petitioner was transferred to Delhi police on the basis that the petitioner was a person required in the above two cases. The question therefore arises as to material available with the respondents particularly the respondents who are State and its authorities, with regard to identity of the petitioner and above said other person. It is, therefore, necessary to bring relevant documents on record. The respondent No.1- State is therefore directed to produce the copies of all the documents comprised in C.R. No. I – 145 of 1996 registered at Kalupur Police Station and C.R. No. I – 34 of 2005 registered at DCB Police Station and the respondent No.8 is directed to produce the copies of the papers comprised in C.R. No. I – 1 of 1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station at Delhi. The respondents No.1 and 8 shall produce the required documents with affidavit within a period of two weeks from today. List the matter thereafter. The respondents No.1 and 8 shall produce the required documents with affidavit within a period of two weeks from today. List the matter thereafter. A copy of this order shall be made available to first and eight respondent today itself.” 7. This Court would like to make a mention that the aforesaid order has not been duly complied with by the respondent no.1-State, especially the direction with regard to production of copies of all the documents comprised in C.R No. I-145 of 1996 registered at Kalupur Police Station and C.R No. I-34 of 2005 registered at DCB Police Station, so also direction given to the respondent no. 8 herein to produce copies of papers comprised in C.R No. I-1 of 1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station Delhi. 8. Perused the record available; including affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 Mr. H.R. Baranda, retired Police Sub Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, from where, it appears that one offence was registered before ‘IGI’ Police Station, New Delhi, being CR No. 1/1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passport Act against one accused namely Kanubhai Manilal Patel, resident of Neminath Society, House No. 8/46, Ranip, Ahmedabad. In connection with the said offence, accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel was arrested from his residence. Thereafter, he escaped from the custody of Delhi Police and for that, the complaint was registered before the Kalupur Police Station, being C.R. No. I 145/1996 for an offence punishable under Section 244 IPC. Meanwhile, another complaint came to be filed before DCB Police Station, being C.R. No. I-34/2005 for an offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B IPC, wherein the present petitioner was arrested on 12th August 2005. 8.1 The petitioner has made certain allegations against the Police Inspector Shri I.M. Kumpavat, Police Sub Inspector Shri H.R. Baranda, Personal Assistant of Police Inspector Shri Kanubhai and Head Constable Shri Sagarbhai Desai saying that during his remand period, illegal demand for gratification was made by these respondents, else they would book the petitioner in one pending case, as the name of the petitioner tallies with the accused of the said pending case, being C.R. No. I- 145 of 1996, which was earlier registered before Kalupur Police Station. Thereafter, it appears that Mr. Thereafter, it appears that Mr. I.M. Kumpavat, who happens to be Inspector of Police, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, by a fax message, informed the Police Commissioner, Delhi stating that in connection with C.R. No. I-1/1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station, the accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel was arrested on 17th August 2005, and therefore, requested to do necessary procedure. 8.2 It also appears from the documents produced on record that Mr. H.R. Baranda, Police Sub Inspector, Jhaverivad Chawki, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, under his signature, made a report to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16 that the accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel, aged about: 25 years, resident of C-1, New Bhumika Apartment Vibhag-3, K.K. Nagar Char Rasta, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad was arrested on 17th August 2005 at about 12.15 hours on the basis of transfer warrant issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.11 in connection with C.R. No. I-145 of 1996 under Section 224 IPC registered with Kalupur Police Station and was forwarded to the judicial custody. It was also noted in the report that accused was in judicial custody in connection with DCB C.R. No. I-34 of 2005 and custody of the said accused was taken over through Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.11 from the Central Jail. The Jail Superintendent of Central Jail Sabarmati was also requested by the said PSI on 6th August 2005 to hand over custody of the accused namely Kanubhai Manilal Patel. For the custody of accused namely Kanubhai Manilal Patel, a request was made by the said PSI before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.16 on 16th August 2005 requesting that the said accused was absconding in an offence registered with Kalupur Police Station, being C.R. No. I-145/1996. That, the petitioner was arrested in another offence ie., Ahmedabad City Crime Branch C.R. No. I-34/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and he was in judicial custody and therefore, he had requested to hand over custody of the said accused. Accordingly, the custody of accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel was handed over as requested. 8.3 From the documents; as referred above, it is clear that the present petitioner was not an accused in connection with C.R. No. I-1/1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station, New Delhi or C.R. No. I-145/1996 for an offence punishable under Section 224 registered with Kalupur Police Station. 8.3 From the documents; as referred above, it is clear that the present petitioner was not an accused in connection with C.R. No. I-1/1996 registered with Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station, New Delhi or C.R. No. I-145/1996 for an offence punishable under Section 224 registered with Kalupur Police Station. The accused of the same name or the real accused having different address available with the concerned police was accused of the same two offence. However, the present petitioner, who was an accused of Ahmedabad City Crime Branch C.R. No. I-34/2005 resident of C-1, New Bhumika Apartment Vibhag-3, K.K. Nagar Char Rasta, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, was arrested by Kalupur Police Station in connection with C.R. No. I-145/1996 under Section 224 IPC. A Fax message was also forwarded to the Police Commissioner, Delhi, as the accused namely Kanubhai Manilal Patel was wanted in connection with C.R. No. I-1/1996 of Indira Gandhi International Airport Police Station, New Delhi. On the basis of a fax message, Delhi Police arrested the present petitioner on 7th September 2005 after getting transfer warrant. The present petitioner was wrongly arrested and taken into custody by Delhi Police, though he requested the Delhi Court to release him from the offence, as he is not the real accused in the offence. The Investigating Officer was directed by the Court to inquire about the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence alleged. It appears that the present petitioner was sent to Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi on 8th September 2005. 8.4 After making necessary inquiry by the Investigating Officer, it was found that Kanubhai Manilal Patel (Accused of C.R. No. I-145 of 1996) was some other person and not the petitioner. It appears that a report was submitted before Delhi Court and ultimately, petitioner was sent back to the Sabarmati Central Jail by Dy. Superintendent of Tihar Jail, Delhi. The custody certificate, under the signature of Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail No.8, Tihar, New Delhi dated 29.09.2005 is produced on record, wherein it is certified that the accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel, son of Manilal Patel, resident of C-1, New Bhumika Apartment, Before Anar Bungalow, K.K. Nagar-4 Rasta, Ghat Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat was admitted in Central Jail No. 8, on 8th September 2005 and remained in jail till date. Superintendent, Central Jail No.8, Tihar, New Delhi dated 29.09.2005 is produced on record, wherein it is certified that the accused Kanubhai Manilal Patel, son of Manilal Patel, resident of C-1, New Bhumika Apartment, Before Anar Bungalow, K.K. Nagar-4 Rasta, Ghat Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat was admitted in Central Jail No. 8, on 8th September 2005 and remained in jail till date. He has been transferred to Ahmedabad Central Jail on 29.09.2005, after discharge in Delhi Case FIR No. 1/96 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act. 8.5 As per the allegation made by the petitioner, during the period in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, his family members; including his wife, son were harassed and they were compelled to stay for 22 days at Delhi without any fault on their part. That, demand for gratification was continued by the Police Officers, as it was not fulfilled, and therefore, harassment to family members of the petitioner was caused to them and they were abused like anything. It is averred that as demand was not fulfilled, his custody was forcibly handed over to Delhi Police. From the certificate issued by Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail No.8, Tihar, New Delhi dated 29.09.2005, it is clear that present petitioner was admitted in Central Jail No.8 on 08.09.2005 and remained in Jail up to 29.09.2005 i.e., for the period of 22 days in connection with an offence, being CR No. I-1/1996 of Delhi Police, though he was not an accused of the same offence, or any subsequent offence, being C.R. No. I-145/1996 registered with Kalupur Police Station. On a request made by Police to discharge the present petitioner from the offence ie. C.R. No. I-1/1996 of IGI Airport Police Station, he was discharged by the Court. It also appears that a report under Section 169 CrPC was also made by the Senior Police Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City to discharge the present petitioner, as no evidence was found in connection with C.R. No. I-145/1996 for an offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad was pleased to release the present petitioner under Section 169 CrPC by his order dated 17th August 2007. 9. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad was pleased to release the present petitioner under Section 169 CrPC by his order dated 17th August 2007. 9. From the above discussions and reasons, it quite clear that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that without there being any offence registered against him, as stated above, he was forcibly taken from Sabarmati Jail to Delhi by Police Officers and was kept illegally and unauthorizedly in a Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi for a period of 22 days, in addition to 1(one) day by Kalupur Police Station. It can be said that the present petitioner was unlawfully detained by the Police Officers, as stated above, which can be said to be abuse of powers vested with the Police Officers and for unlawful detention, the petitioner would be entitled to be compensated. Here, this Court would like to refer to a decision in case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 610 relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Dagli, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the following guidelines to be followed by the authorities in case of arrest or detention: (i) The Police Personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The Particulars of all such personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (ii) That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of the arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (iii) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of the arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (iv) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organization in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (v) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained. (vi) An entry must be made in the Case Diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars if the police official in whose custody the arrestee is. (vii) The Arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (viii) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by the Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory. (ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest should be sent to the Magistrate for his record. (x) The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest should be sent to the Magistrate for his record. (x) The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (xi) A Police Control Room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the Police Control Room Board, it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. 10. From the facts, prima facie, it appears that although, there was no offence registered as such against the petitioner, he was forcibly taken from Sabarmati Central jail to Central Jail, Tihar by Delhi Police, on a fax message submitted by Mr. I.M. Kumpavat, Inspector of Police, Kalupur Police Station. Similarity of the accused, age, address, if any, with the present petitioner, would not justify the respondent for picking up and arrest him, and then, to say that he was arrested because of similar modus operandi for the same name and age. The present petitioner has made his detailed representation to the Additional Police Commissioner and others on 10.01.2006. It appears that no response was received by the present petitioner or actions were taken. The petitioner was not permitted to meet his family members; including his wife, when his custody was taken by Delhi Police from Sabarmati jail. It is impressed that when the petitioner was forcibly taken, there was no identification and name tag displayed, as described in guideline no.1; mentioned above. It appears that when his custody was taken by Delhi Police, he was not given an opportunity to meet his family members or to contact by phone to his relatives. 11. On perusal of the guidelines read in context with the present case, it clearly emerges that the officers of the State did not follow the guidelines. Thus, prima facie, it is clear from the record that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India were violated. When an offence was not registered, forcibly taking the petitioner to Delhi and detaining him for a period of 22 days and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad would be unlawful. 12. This Court is of the view that due to illegal act of the respondents no. When an offence was not registered, forcibly taking the petitioner to Delhi and detaining him for a period of 22 days and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad would be unlawful. 12. This Court is of the view that due to illegal act of the respondents no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the petitioner was forcibly taken by Delhi Police without any fault on his part, as he was not connected with any offence; as discussed above and detained in illegal custody for a period of 22 days, as he did not fulfill the demand of the respondents. Here, a wrongful act has been committed by the respondents no. 3 to 7 for which, the respondent no.1-State being the employer of the respondents no. 3 to 7 should initiate an inquiry holding them responsible for such an illegal act committed by them, as they themselves are responsible in their personal capacity to pay compensation to the petitioner from his wrongful confinement de hors the law. The petitioner and his family members must have suffered great harassment, pain and shock, due to illegal arrest of the petitioner in a wrong proceedings. 13. Considering the incident, age, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be compensated, which is quantified at Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) to be recovered from the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, jointly and severally. The respondent no.1-State to ensure that compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) is recovered from the respondents No. 3 to 7 either from their salary or from their pension permissible by rules within a period of 2(Two) months and shall deposit the amount before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount, after it is deposited. It is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his civil remedies for a claim of further compensation, if any, and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) so directed to be paid will be adjusted in the further compensation, if any. The respondent no.1- State shall be at liberty to initiate suitable inquiry against the concerned employees and fix their responsibility. 14. With this, present Application stands partly allowed. Notice discharged. Application partly allowed.