Holding that prolonged detention after securing bail is unsanctioned by law, the High Court at Calcutta, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt, ruled that a tea garden worker was subjected to 60 days of unlawful confinement and directed the State of West Bengal to pay him Rs 5,36,000 in compensation for loss of employment, mental agony, and the plight of illegal detention.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Joy Krishna Nag (also known as Joy Kumar Nag and Rohit), had approached the High Court invoking its constitutional writ jurisdiction under a habeas corpus petition. Nag had been implicated in three criminal cases registered at Kumargram Police Station: Case Nos. 101/18, 103/18, and 141/18.
Although Nag secured orders of bail in connection with all three criminal proceedings and furnished the necessary sureties in accordance with those orders, he was not released from custody on August 6, 2018, as required. Instead, his incarceration continued until October 5, 2018. Consequently, Nag approached the High Court claiming that he had been subjected to illegal detention for the intervening 60-day period.
Submissions by the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, the learned advocate submitted that Nag had obtained bail in all three criminal cases and ought to have been released on August 6, 2018. The counsel pointed out that at the material time, the petitioner was employed as a tea garden worker earning approximately Rs 600 per day. Contending that Nag was entitled to redress not only for his loss of livelihood but also for illegal detention, mental harassment, and agony, the counsel prayed for compensation of Rs 20 lakhs, leaving the final quantum to the discretion of the court.
On behalf of the State, the learned Additional Government Pleader conceded on instructions that there was “hardly any explanation for the period of detention.” However, the State submitted that proceedings in an MR Case had been initiated on August 14, 2018, in which the custody of the petitioner was purportedly required, leading to his continued incarceration until his release on October 5, 2018.
The Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench scrutinized the record and observed that the petitioner had indeed secured bail and furnished surety in all three police cases. Addressing the State’s reliance on the subsequent proceedings, the Bench noted that MR Case No. 780 of 2018 had been initiated following an allegation that Nag violated a bond executed to ensure peace in the locality. The court examined the two relevant orders passed in that matter on August 6, 2018, and August 14, 2018.
Rejecting the State’s justification, the Bench observed:
“On perusal of those two orders in the MR case, we are not in a position to return a finding that the writ petitioner was required to be kept in custody beyond the period of the writ petitioner furnishing his bail in the three police cases.”
The court held that keeping the petitioner in detention merely for production before the jurisdictional court in the MR proceedings lacked legal foundation:
“The plea of the State that, the custody of the writ petitioner was required for the purpose of producing the writ petitioner in respect of MR Case No.780 of 2018 is not found satisfactory. Orders passed therein did not require the writ petitioner to be kept in custody.”
Concurring on the unlawfulness of the custody, the Bench held:
“In such circumstances, we hold the period of detention of the writ petitioner between August 6, 2018 and October 5, 2018 was not sanctioned by law. The writ petitioner, therefore, is entitled to compensation for such period.”
Decision and Award of Compensation
Assessing the quantum of relief, Justice Debangsu Basak noted that while the petitioner had claimed Rs 20 lakhs, he had been unable to furnish adequate materials to substantiate that amount.
Taking into account that Nag earned Rs 600 per day as a tea garden worker, the court calculated the direct loss of employment for the 60 days of illegal detention at Rs 36,000. In addition, the Bench determined that Nag was entitled to be compensated for the mental agony and plight caused by his unlawful confinement, fixing an additional sum of Rs 5 lakhs under that head.
The High Court awarded an aggregate compensation of Rs 5,36,000 to be paid by the State to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order, and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.
Case Title: Joy Krishna Nag @ Joy Kumar Nag @ Rohit Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 20950 of 2018
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt
Date: October 5, 2026
