JUDGMENT By the Court.—By means of this writ petition, petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing State authorities to pay damages to petitioner on account of custodial death of accused Lavkush while he was in jail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2014, Luvkush Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh The allegation is that custodial death of the accused while in jail was caused due to negligence and carelessness on the part of jail authority and therefore, State is liable to compensate heirs of deceased. 2. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 (2) SCC 746 , wherein Court has held that on account of death caused for negligence and carelessness of State authorities, dependents of such deceased are liable to be compensated for such negligence and carelessness caused. In the said judgment Supreme Court has relied upon earlier judgment in case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 3 SCR 508 , Women’s Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, (1990) 1 SCC 422 and held that State of Orissa in that case was liable to pay compensation and this liability cannot be doubted. The Court laid down principle on which liability of State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and liability in private law for payment of compensation is an action of tort. It is further held that public law remedy under Article 32 and 226 available in case of strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which principle of sovereign immunity would not come into play which otherwise would be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. Above distinction between two remedies one has borne in mind. Court emphasised on payment of compensation even in realm of public law remedies. 3. Above distinction between two remedies one has borne in mind. Court emphasised on payment of compensation even in realm of public law remedies. 3. However applying above law in the facts of present case, we find that herein, there is a report by Senior Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad in which it has been stated that on account of illness of detenu he was admitted to Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad on the advice of Medical Superintendent of Jail on 27.1.2015 and after recovery from illness, he was discharged on 31.1.2015 and brought back to jail again when health problem arose on 2.2.2015. He is taken to Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. After receiving medical aid he was discharged and brought back to jail on 3.2.2015. Thereafter he was under treatment in jail hospital where he died ultimately in morning on 4.2.2015. This report of Senior Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad dated 4.2.2015, addressed to Smt. Sadhana Devi W/o detenu is preceded by earlier letter dated 28.1.2015 whereby Jail Superintendent had informed petitioner about ill health of detenu who was taken to hospital and admitted to hospital on 27.1.2015. It was advised that at least one member of family should be present. In the entire writ petition these two letters dated 28.1.2015 and 4.2.2015 have not been disputed and it is also nowhere stated in entire writ petition, whether any member of family had attended hospital after receiving letter dated 27.1.2015. 4. In paragraph 6 to writ petition it stated that appellant died on 4.2.2015 in jail custody. However, in paragraphs 5 and 7, letter sent by Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad has been admitted. We also do not find any narration of facts in entire writ petition that any complaint was ever made by members of family of detenu to authorities or atleast to Medical Superintendent of Jail about ill health of detenu, charging jail authority for not taking care of deceased. Paragraphs in which assertions have been made about negligence of Jail authority are absolutely silent about what negligence jail authorities have committed, whereas, to the contrary, we find that jail authorities were vigilant enough about ill health of detenu. They informed petitioner about health of detenu and that he was taken to hospital before his death. Paragraphs in which assertions have been made about negligence of Jail authority are absolutely silent about what negligence jail authorities have committed, whereas, to the contrary, we find that jail authorities were vigilant enough about ill health of detenu. They informed petitioner about health of detenu and that he was taken to hospital before his death. It is also not stated in writ petition that detenu got discharged from hospital per force by jail authorities and that they had ever questioned discharge by Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. We, therefore, are of considered opinion that detenu in Central Jail, Naini, was fully taken care of. He was properly treated and thereafter discharged. Hospital authorities are supposed to be only authorities to take sound decision about health of a person. Therefore decision to discharge from hospital after recovery from ill health of patient cannot be doubted unless some cogent material is brought on record that discharge by Government hospital was in fact a colourable or malicious or negligent exercise of power. 5. In view of above judgements (supra) cited by leaned counsel for appellant-petitioner is quite distinguishable on facts. It is not a case where State is liable in any manner to be held negligent and careless. It is a simple case of death on account of illness of which proper care was taken by jail authorities. Considering fundamental principle behind compensation and liability of State vis-a-vis pubic law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution, we find that it is not one of those cases where any fundamental right of a citizen has been violated by any State action infringing right to life and liberty. Death on account of illness or otherwise, in the absence of any negligence and carelessness, is an ultimate accident in life which every human being is to face. For every accident there cannot be compensation unless and until accidental liability can be fastened upon person for some culpability on his part. Atleast public law remedy in the instant case is not available to petitioner for award of compensation for alleged custodial death of detenu. 6. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.