JUDGMENT : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.4, being the corpus, who has now been released, there is no need to issue notice of Rule to him. However, he is present in person in the Court today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, the cousin brother of the corpus, Umarbhai Abubakarbhai Belim (respondent No.4), with a prayer to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other direction, to the respondent-Jail authority, namely, Jail Superintendent/Jailer, Surendranagar Sub-Jail (respondent No.2), to produce the corpus of Umarbhai Abubakarbhai Belim before this Court and set him at liberty, in the interest of justice. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner to compensate the corpus for keeping him in unlawful custody post 01.12.2017 and impose exemplary costs upon the concerned respondents. 3. The brief factual background of the case, as stated in the petition, is as follows. 3.1 The corpus was arrested and produced before the Family Court, Surendranagar on 08.08.2017 for failure to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- to his wife, pursuant to the issuance of a warrant by the Family Court, Surendranagar, below an application made by his wife vide Criminal Misc. Application No.3/2017. The Family Court, Surendranagar, convicted the corpus and directed imprisonment for sixty-five (65) days vide order dated 08.08.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3/2017. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-A (Collectively), more specifically at running Pages-13 and 14 of the petition. 3.2 In the meanwhile, the wife of the corpus had also made another application for the recovery of the maintenance amount in parallel proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Domestic Violence Act”, for short), vide Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2017. The corpus was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Surendranagar, in connection with this application. The learned JMFC, Surendranagar, convicted the corpus for another one hundred and fourteen (114) days for the non-payment of the maintenance amount of Rs.52,500/- on 16.08.2017, sending him to the custody of respondent No.2 for the purpose of serving the sentence, vide order dated 16.08.2017. A copy of this order is produced at running Pages17 to 19 of the petition. The learned JMFC, Surendranagar, convicted the corpus for another one hundred and fourteen (114) days for the non-payment of the maintenance amount of Rs.52,500/- on 16.08.2017, sending him to the custody of respondent No.2 for the purpose of serving the sentence, vide order dated 16.08.2017. A copy of this order is produced at running Pages17 to 19 of the petition. 3.3 While the corpus was in Jail undergoing sentence, the Family Court again convicted him for the failure to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.49,000/-, sentencing him to one hundred and five (105) days of imprisonment vide order dated 30.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017. A copy of this order is produced at running Pages-22 to 23 of the petition. 3.4 In the meanwhile, the corpus had challenged the judgment and order dated 03.12.2016, below the application at Exhibit-7 in Criminal Misc. Application No.203/2016 (original proceedings from which the other orders have emanated), passed by the Family Court, before the High Court, vide Criminal Revision Application No.383/2017. 3.5 By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2017, the learned Single Judge (Coram : S.G. Shah, J.) partly-allowed the petition and the impugned order dated 03.12.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.203/2016 was quashed and set aside, with certain directions. The matter was remanded to the Family Court to decide afresh, within four months, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. Till the Family Court decided the matter, the corpus was directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as interim maintenance to his wife. The learned Single Judge has further directed that in view of the above directions the warrant, if any, issued against the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order that was quashed by it, shall remain in abeyance till the amount of arrears is paid. 3.6 The amount of arrears to be paid by the petitioner amounted to Rs.35,000/-. After the corpus had paid the said amount of arrears, he preferred an application to the Family Court for his release from custody. By an order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-E to the petition), the Family Court, Surendranagar, directed the release of the corpus from custody, if not wanted in any other case. 3.7 According to the corpus, he should have been released on 01.12.2017, pursuant to the above order of the Family Court. By an order dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure-E to the petition), the Family Court, Surendranagar, directed the release of the corpus from custody, if not wanted in any other case. 3.7 According to the corpus, he should have been released on 01.12.2017, pursuant to the above order of the Family Court. However, he was not released by the Jail authorities, despite the fact that the said order was duly served upon them. It is averred in the petition that the Jail authorities attempted to bypass the order of the Family Court by not releasing the corpus and have kept him under illegal detention. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition. 4. Mr. Salim M. Saiyed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the corpus is a victim of the unlawful whims of the respondent-Jail authorities, who have kept him in illegal confinement and unlawful custody without any order of the Court. He has deliberately not been released pursuant to the order of the Family Court, for reasons best known to them. The detention of the corpus beyond the period directed by the Courts is illegal and unconstitutional and, in addition, amounts to contempt of Court. 4.1 It is further submitted that the Jail authorities had no right, whatsoever, to keep the corpus in custody after 01.12.2017. The petitioner has reason to believe that this was done at the behest of respondent No.3, who is the nephew of the wife of the corpus, who is claiming maintenance from him. Respondent No.3 is working as a Senior Clerk in the office of the Jail Superintendent, Surendranagar Sub-Jail, (respondent No.2), and was involved in the paper-work regarding the release of the corpus. 4.2 It is further submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2, Shri Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher, In-charge Jailer Group-II, Rajkot Jail, it is stated that respondent No.3 and one Mr. Rohit Parmar (Junior Clerk) had prepared the calculation of the sentence to be undergone by the corpus. Documents were produced before the deponent of the affidavit, which he believed to be true. Respondent No.3, therefore, appears to have deliberately miscalculated the period of sentence so as to keep the corpus in Jail for a longer time, being related to the wife of the corpus, which aspect has not been controverted by respondent No.3. Documents were produced before the deponent of the affidavit, which he believed to be true. Respondent No.3, therefore, appears to have deliberately miscalculated the period of sentence so as to keep the corpus in Jail for a longer time, being related to the wife of the corpus, which aspect has not been controverted by respondent No.3. 4.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further elaborated that the corpus ought to have been released pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2017, passed by the Family Court. When he was not released, the petitioner preferred the present petition on 07.12.2017. This Court issued notice in the petition on 08.12.2017. The notice was served upon respondent No.2 on 09.12.2017 at 12:00 noon. It was accepted by one Mr. Rohitsinh Parmar, in the presence of respondent No.3. However, Shri Rohitsinh Parmar and respondent No.3 refused to make any endorsement on the counter of the notice and the petitioner was asked to return home. After the service of the notice of this Court, the Jail authorities released the corpus on 09.12.2017 at 8:30 p.m. The corpus has thus been kept in illegal confinement for nine days, with effect from 01.12.2017 to 09.12.2017. 4.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that the illegal custody and confinement of the corpus, for no lawful reason and under no lawful authority, is violative of his fundamental rights under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. 4.5 It is further submitted that for the unlawful detention of the corpus, he may be compensated, in view of the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the following cases : (1) Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141 . (2) Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 . (3) Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J & K and others, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 677 . 4.6 On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petition be allowed, insofar as the grant of compensation is concerned. 5. Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairly submitted that, no doubt, in the present case, there has been illegal confinement of the corpus for five days, with effect from 04.12.2017 to 09.12.2017. 5. Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairly submitted that, no doubt, in the present case, there has been illegal confinement of the corpus for five days, with effect from 04.12.2017 to 09.12.2017. This mistake has been admitted by Shri Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher, In-charge Jailer Group-II, Rajkot Jail, who has filed the affidavit-in-reply, affirmed on __.12.2017 (which from the seal of the Notary appears to be 20.12.2017). Shri D.R. Karangiya, In-charge Jail Superintendent, Surendranagar, has also admitted the mistake of keeping the corpus in Jail beyond 04.12.2017 in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, affirmed on 18.12.2017. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this mistake has occurred due to a miscalculation, as explained in both the above affidavits. 5.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the corpus was not required to be released with effect from 01.12.2017, but was to be released from 04.12.2017. As the corpus was released on 09.12.2017, it can be said that he was kept in custody beyond the required period of detention for five days and not nine days, as claimed by the petitioner. 5.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced before us, a copy of the judgment dated 23.12.2016, passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Harsha Devani and Biren Vaishnav, JJ.) in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.4937/2016, wherein the detenue was kept in custody without authority of law for thirty-seven days and the Court had directed the State Government to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the detenue, in addition to costs of the petition quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 6. Though respondent No.3 has been served and has remained present on each and every date of hearing and is also present today, he has not cared to engage an advocate or file any reply. Respondent No.3 has been arrayed in his private capacity. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly not appeared for him. 7. During the pendency of the petition, or rather one day after the issuance of notice, the corpus came to be released from custody. The issue, now, is not regarding the release of the corpus or his production before the Court, but centers around the period of time for which the corpus was kept in illegal detention by the Jail authorities. During the pendency of the petition, or rather one day after the issuance of notice, the corpus came to be released from custody. The issue, now, is not regarding the release of the corpus or his production before the Court, but centers around the period of time for which the corpus was kept in illegal detention by the Jail authorities. According to the petitioner, the period for which the corpus was kept under illegal detention is nine days, with effect from 01.12.2017 to 09.12.2017, but according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the period is of five days, with effect from 04.12.2017 to 09.12.2017. 8. That there was illegal detention of the corpus beyond the period directed by the Courts, is an admitted position. The dispute revolves around the number of days for which he was kept in Jail without the authority of law. 9. To throw more light in this regard, we may take a brief look at the orders of the Family Court and the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, sentencing the corpus. In chronological order, they are as follows : Sr. No. Particulars of the order Court Period of sentence 1. Order dated 08.08.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3/2017 By the Family Court, Surendranagar 65 days 2. Order dated 16.08.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2017 By the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar 114 days 3. Order dated 30.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017 By the Family Court, Surendranagar 105 days* *[Modified by the order of the Family Court dated 01.12.2017, passed under Exhibit-29 in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017] 10. It is noteworthy that the Family Court has modified its own order dated 30.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017, by its order dated 01.12.2017, on the ground that the corpus has undergone sentence for thirty days and paid the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.35,000/-, therefore, he be released from custody, if not required in any other proceedings. This order is annexed as Annexure-E to the petition. This means that the sentence of one hundred and five (105) days imposed by the Family Court, Surendranagar, vide order dated 30.10.2017, has been cut short by the order dated 01.12.2017 and the release of the corpus is directed. The sentence of sixty-five (65) days imposed by order dated 08.08.2017 of the Family Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.3/2017, ended on 12.10.2017. The sentence of sixty-five (65) days imposed by order dated 08.08.2017 of the Family Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.3/2017, ended on 12.10.2017. The sentence of one hundred and fourteen (114) days imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar, vide order dated 16.08.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2017, got over on 30.11.2017. Hence, the effect of the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Family Court, modifying the order dated 30.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017, would be, that the corpus ought to have been released on 01.12.2017, pursuant to the said order. 11. From the above orders and sequence of events, it is amply clear that the corpus ought to have been released pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2017, passed by the Family Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017. Instead, the corpus was released on 09.12.2017, at 8:30 p.m. and that too after the service of the notice issued by this Court, served on the respondents on 08.12.2017, at 12:00 noon. These facts are not disputed by either side. Clearly, in our view, the corpus has been kept in illegal custody and detention for a period of nine days. 12. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, affirmed by Shri Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher on 20.12.2017, the explanation for the illegal detention given is that, it was the first independent work of the deponent, who was on temporary deputation from 01.12.2017 to 07.12.2017 (one week). The Senior Clerk of the Surendranagar Sub-Jail (respondent No.3) and a person named Mr. Rohit Parmar (Junior Clerk), prepared the statement regarding the calculation of the sentence undergone by the corpus and produced it before the deponent, who believed it to be just and proper. According to Shri Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher, it was his first experience as a Jailer Group-II at Surendranagar Sub-Jail and he could not trace the error committed by the abovementioned persons. 13. The crux of the affidavit is that the deponent, Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher, has admitted the mistake of incarcerating the corpus in Jail beyond the legally required period of detention, but has tried to pass the buck to respondent No.3 (Senior Clerk) and Mr. Rohit Parmar (Junior Clerk). 14. The same is the situation insofar as the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, deposed by Shri D.R. Karangiya, In-charge Jail Superintendent, Surendranagar on 18.12.2017, is concerned. Rohit Parmar (Junior Clerk). 14. The same is the situation insofar as the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, deposed by Shri D.R. Karangiya, In-charge Jail Superintendent, Surendranagar on 18.12.2017, is concerned. In this affidavit Shri D.R. Karangiya has tried to justify the illegal detention of the corpus on the ground of miscalculation and misinterpretation of the Court's order and has sought an apology for his so-called unintentional mistake. 15. The attention of the Court was drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to the letter dated 04.12.2017, addressed by the In-charge Superintendent of Surendranagar Sub-Jail, Shri Krushnakumar Ajmalbhai Vadher, to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar. In this letter, Shri Vadher has acknowledged the receipt of the order dated 01.12.2017, passed by the Family Court, directing the release of the corpus in modification of its earlier order dated 30.10.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.264/2017. However, in blatant disregard of the said order, Shri Vadher has informed the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, by this letter, that he is not in a position to release the corpus as an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards maintenance, has not been paid by him. He has further written that the Family Court be informed, accordingly. 16. We are shocked at the tone and tenor of the letter dated 04.12.2017, written by Mr. Vadher to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surendranagar. It is no business of Shri Vadher to first disobey the order of the Family Court and then, impudently, inform the Court of the supposed reason for such disobedience, stating that the Family Court “be informed” regarding the reasons for the said disobedience. This amounts to a wilful disobedience of the order of the Family Court. Such conduct can be said to be contemptuous. 17. Another noteworthy aspect regarding the period of illegal detention may be adverted to. In the order dated 16.08.2017, passed by the learned JMFC, Surendranagar, in Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2017, whereby the corpus was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one hundred and fourteen (114) days, the learned JMFC has clearly stated that the period of custody undergone by the corpus in connection with these proceedings is required to be deducted from the sentence. It is an admitted position that the corpus was kept in custody in connection with these proceedings with effect from 08.08.2017. It is an admitted position that the corpus was kept in custody in connection with these proceedings with effect from 08.08.2017. The order of the learned JMFC was passed on 16.08.2017; therefore, the period of eight days, with effect from 08.08.2017 to 16.08.2017 could not have been calculated by the Jail authority as part of the sentence, in order to keep the corpus under detention for such period. Even otherwise, the sentence of one hundred and fourteen (114) days imposed by the order dated 16.08.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2017 was already over on 30.11.2017. This aspect is not denied by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and is clear from the affidavit of Shri D.R. Karangiya, affirmed on 18.12.2017. 18. Under the circumstances, it transpires that there was neither an order of a Court, nor any justification, to keep the corpus under detention for the extra period of nine days. We cannot accept the calculation of the Jail authorities, or the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard, that the corpus has been confined in Jail without an order of the Court, for only five days. In our view, based upon the record, the corpus has been illegally confined for nine days, with effect from 01.12.2017 to 09.12.2017. 19. As a result of this unauthorized action on the part of the Jail authorities, the fundamental rights of the corpus under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been blatantly infringed. The explanation for this, as rendered in the two affidavits mentioned hereinabove, is highly unconvincing. It cannot be believed that the Jail authorities committed an error of calculation in this case, as the said authorities are quite expert in calculating the days of sentence in their line of work, day in and day out. Respondent No.3 has offered no defence and has not denied that he is the nephew of the wife of the corpus, or that he was involved in the calculation of the number of days. Whether, or not, respondent No.3, or any other person, was responsible for the miscalculation, is for the authorities to inquire into, hereafter. The fact remains that the illegal confinement of the corpus has taken place at the behest of the Jail authorities. 20. The corpus is not a criminal or a threat to society. Whether, or not, respondent No.3, or any other person, was responsible for the miscalculation, is for the authorities to inquire into, hereafter. The fact remains that the illegal confinement of the corpus has taken place at the behest of the Jail authorities. 20. The corpus is not a criminal or a threat to society. He is an ordinary citizen who happened to be on the wrong side of the law because of his default regarding the payment of the maintenance amount to his wife. It was for this reason, that he was directed to undergo the above-mentioned periods of sentence. After having paid the arrears of the maintenance, the corpus was set free by the order dated 01.12.2017, passed by the Family Court. There was, therefore, no legally justifiable reason for the Jail authorities to keep the corpus under detention after 01.12.2017. The Jail authorities were well aware of the order dated 01.12.2017, directing the release of the corpus. They appear to have deliberately and blatantly chosen to disregard the said order, for reasons best known to them, even going to the extent of informing the Family Court regarding their inability to comply with the said order. 21. The position of law regarding illegal detention of a citizen and the compensation payable for such detention that amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been settled by a catena of judgments. 22. In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and another (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a Habeas Corpus petition wherein the petitioner had approached the Court for his release from unlawful detention in Jail. After dealing with the arguments advanced by the concerned Department of the Government of Bihar, the respondent therein, regarding the enforcement of the rights and obligations under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court dealt with the plea of the petitioner for compensation, in the following terms: “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 State's Counsel has not raised that objection. 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 State's 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 violaters 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 civilization 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 petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers. 11. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers. 11. Taking into consideration the 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.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In Nilabati Behera (SMT) alias Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa and others (surpa), the powers of the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were invoked by the petitioner therein consequent upon the death of her son in Police custody. There was also a prayer for the determination of the claim for compensation. In this context, the Supreme Court held as below : “35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the Courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the Courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the Courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J.” 24. In Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J & K and others (supra), the Supreme Court was petitioned regarding the deprivation of the personal liberty of the petitioner therein, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court is as follows : “2. ***** We can only say that the Police Officers acted in a most highhanded way. We do not wish to use stronger words to condemn the authoritarian acts of the police. The relevant extract of the judgment of the Supreme Court is as follows : “2. ***** We can only say that the Police Officers acted in a most highhanded way. We do not wish to use stronger words to condemn the authoritarian acts of the police. If the personal liberty of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals! Police Officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs 01 otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India. When a person comes to us with the complaint that 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 25. The principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above cases, especially the case of Bhim Singh, supra, apply squarely to the case in hand. In Bhim Singh's case, the petitioner had been illegally detained for a period of three days only. The Supreme Court directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him within two months from the date of the judgment. 26. In the present case, the illegal detention of the corpus is established to be for a period of nine days. Respondent No.2, Jail Superintendent, who is responsible for keeping the corpus under illegal detention, is an employee of the State Government. Respondent No.3 (Senior Clerk), is also a serving employee of the State Government and has prepared the calculation for the period of sentence of the corpus. 27. Respondent No.1, State of Gujarat, is, therefore, directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation to the corpus, Umarbhai Abubakarbhai Belim (respondent No.4), for keeping him in illegal detention for a period of nine days. The compensation shall be paid within a period of one month from today. In addition thereto, costs of litigation amounting to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid to the corpus, within the same period. The amount of compensation and costs shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court. Upon deposit thereof, the Registry shall release it to the corpus, Umarbhai Abubakarbhai Belim (respondent No.4). 28. It is open for the State of Gujarat to fix the responsibility of the erring officers/officials and recover the costs from them, if it considers it appropriate to do so. 29. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rules is made absolute, accordingly. 30. Direct service is permitted.