'State-Inflicted Injustice': Punjab & Haryana HC Grants ₹3 Lakh Compensation To Man Detained For 9 Months In Excess Of Sentence Imposed

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted Rs. 3 Lakh compensation to a convict in a drugs case who was kept in custody beyond the sentence imposed, observing that "Such violations are not mere administrative lapses; they are acts of constitutional disregard that demand accountability, redressal, and systemic correction."

Turning a blind eye to these injustices would not only embolden further violations but also diminish the very essence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it added.

The Court found that the man had spent 2 years, 3 months and 29 days in custody, while he was only sentenced to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "State-inflicted injustice, such as unlawfully extending a person's custody beyond the sentence imposed by a competent Court, is a serious breach that cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The State, as the custodian of constitutional values, bears the highest responsibility to uphold the rights of its citizens which includes even those who are convicted of crimes. When the State itself becomes the violator of liberty through negligence or apathy, it sets a dangerous precedent that erodes faith in the justice system."

The Court said  that the present case highlights a troubling gap where access to legal remedies is influenced not by the merits of the case, "but by one's financial means."

It added that the Court would be "remiss to ignore the ineptitude displayed by the District Legal Services Authority in this regard."

"The concerned agency is required to demonstrate promptness so as to meaningfully ensure that convicts like the present appellant do not suffer unnecessary incarceration in already overcrowded prisons, for the time lost cannot be truly compensated," the judge opined.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction in a drugs case wherein Satnam Singh was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) in 2006 in an FIR lodged in 2002.

In 2002, while patrolling duty the Punjab Police apprehended Singh with 25 Kgs of Poppy Husk in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

After examining the submission, the Court found that the contraband was recovered from a bag being carried by the appellant and no instance of personal search has been recorded. As such there was no need to issue notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

During the hearing, Justice Brar highlighted that, "perusal of the custody certificate indicates that the appellant has spent 02 years, 03 months and 29 days in custody, while he was only sentenced to 01 year and 06 months of imprisonment in the instant case. Even if the 03 months awarded as sentence for default in payment of fine is considered, the maximum duration the appellant could have been kept in custody was 01 year 09 months."

The State counsel could not bring forth any reason that could justify detaining the appellant for longer than warranted, noted the Court.

The Law Must Be Blind To Wealth Or Status

The Court observed that, "the law must be blind to wealth or status and, in line with the constitutional spirit, treat all individuals equally. However, in practice, disparities often emerge, especially between the rich and the poor. If the appellant had been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on his detention and secure a timely release."

However, lack thereof left him to remain in custody longer than legally sanctioned, at the mercy of the jail officials, it added.

Reliance was placed on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577] wherein the Apex Court took note of the unnecessary detention of accused and issued directions to avoid non essential arrest as illiteracy or lack of financial resources qua one's rights should not be allowed to make one fall prey to the faults in the State machinery.

 The judge further said that , the sentence awarded by a trial Court comes after careful consideration of all relevant facts, legal arguments, and a dedicated sentencing hearing. It reflects a calibrated judicial decision that balances the gravity of the offence with the rights of the convict.

Therefore, when a person is kept in custody beyond the term of the sentence awarded, it directly undermines the due process of law. Such extended incarceration, not sanctioned by any judicial order, amounts to a disregard for the authority of the Court and the rule of law, the Court concluded.

While dismissing the plea, the Court awarded Rs. 3 Lakh as compensation and said that "the same is to be paid by the concerned State government within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order and file a compliance report in the Registry of this Court within four weeks thereafter."

The Court also said that, "the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount awarded as compensation from the erring officials and the award of compensation by this Court shall not prohibit the appellant from pursuing civil remedies available to him to recover damages incurred."

Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

Title: Satnam Singh v. The State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order