IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.829 of 2008 SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, S/o. late Shyam Narayan Singh, r/o. Village + Post- Adhamkhap, P.S. Magadh University, Gaya, Distt. Gaya. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THRU.D.G.P., Bihar. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 3. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 4. The Inspector Magadh Unversity P.S., Bodh Gaya. 5. Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Cherki Bodh Gaya, 6. Assistant Sub-Inspector P.S. Cherki, Bodh Gaya. 7. Chowkidar (Mundrika Paswan) P.S. Cherki Bodh Gaya. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anshuman, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate. Counsel for the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G-6. 03. 13.08.2009 The petitioner prays for compensation by way of price of the two bullocks belonging to him and which were seized by police in connection with Bodh Gaya (Cherki) P.S. Case No.143 of 2006 under Section 414 of IPC and the two bullocks were directed to be released in his favour by the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 19.01.2007 and despite the petitioner having produced the release order before the Police Officer of the concerned P.S. the bullocks were not released and due to improper keeping and feeding the bullocks died while in custody of the police authority. Petitioner’s case is that his two bullocks had strayed away and they were missing, hence, he had lodged a Sanha (Annexure-1) dated 26.11.2006 before the O.C. Magadh University P.S., Gaya. Annexure-2 shows that in 2 course of patrolling, police party found three persons going with two bullocks and on being questioned they tried to flee away but two of them along with stolen bullocks were apprehended and Bodh Gaya (Cherki) P.S. Case No.143 of 2006 under Section 414 of the I.P.C. was instituted. The bullocks were seized and remained in custody of the police. On learning about the recovery of the bullocks the petitioner appeared before the learned C.J.M., Gaya and prayed for the release of the two bullocks. Vide order dated 19.01.2007 the learned C.J.M. on submission of bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount ordered for releasing the two bullocks in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly release order dated 25.01.2007 vide Annexure- 3 was issued for the release of these two bullocks in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner’s case is that he went to the Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. with the release order and prayed for releasing of the bullocks in his favour, but the police officials of the P.S. refused to release the bullocks in his favour. Annexure-4 is the petition as filed by the petitioner before Superintendent of Police, Gaya, wherein the petitioner has complained that despite the production of the release order the bullocks were not released to him because the police officials of the police station were enraged and they said that the petitioner had complained in 3 the Janta Darbar before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, hence, the bullocks would not be released to the petitioner. The petition was signed by some villagers as witness of the act of not releasing the bullocks by the police officials. The petitioner’s further case is that the bullocks were not released to him despite the order of the Court and bullocks were not properly maintained, hence, the bullocks died. The petitioner states to have suffered huge loss, hence he has come before the court for payment by way of compensation. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 i.e., the Superintendent of Police Gaya and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gaya. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned P.S., the Assistant Sub- Inspector of the concerned P.S. and the Chowkidar Mudrika Paswan in whose custody the bullocks were kept in the P.S. have not filed any counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3, it is stated at Annexure-A i.e., the letter No.512 dated 25.03.2009 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gaya addressed to Superintendent of Police, Gaya that show cause explanation was called for from the S.I., Shambhu Nath Dubey in this regard and he has submitted his show-cause reply but it was not satisfactory, hence, the departmental proceeding was 4 initiated against him in the matter. It is stated in the letter that negligence and leches were committed by making delay in the return of the bullocks, as a result of which the bullocks died. Vide Annexures-B, C & D it appears that the learned C.J.M. had called for show cause reply from the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned P.S. The show-cause reply was submitted, in which reasons have been tried to be explained but they are quite unsatisfactory. It appears that despite the order of the C.J.M. they were not released to the petitioner and the bullocks were also not properly maintained while they were in police custody and due to ill- maintenance and improper feeding the bullocks died Vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the two bullocks were died while in police custody. Thus, it is quite clear that the bullocks were seized by the police and they remained in police custody and they were not released to the petitioner despite the release order of the learned C.J.M. directing the release of the bullocks in favour of the petitioner. Vide Annexure-A the Superintendent of Police, Gaya states that due to the negligence of the police officials of the P.S. the bullocks died because they committed inordinate delay in the return of the bullocks and the bullocks were also not properly maintained. No doubt the Superintendent of Police has 5 initiated a departmental proceeding against the concerned police officials but this is no redressal to the petitioner who has lodged this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two bullocks were the source of the livelihood of the petitioner which was died in the custody of the police officials. It is also submitted that the concerned police officials deliberately disobeyed the order of the leaned C.J.M. and they did not release the bullocks though the petitioner had gone for obtaining the release of the bullocks. It is also submitted that the petitioner even approached the Superintendent of Police with a petition for the release but that also did not show any effect on the officials of the police station in the matter of releasing the bullocks in compliance to the release order as passed by the learned C.J.M. This shows an act of arrogance and it also indicates disobedience of the order of C.J.M. This all has resulted into serious loss to the petitioner who lost his two bullocks which died while in custody. The petitioner prays for a compensation. Exercising its power, this court deems it fit and proper that a fair compensation is awarded to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, compensation of Rs.20, 000/- (Twenty thousand) is allowed to the petitioner. This will be paid by the respondent No.1, the Government of Bihar. It will be open to the government 6 to realize it from the erring police officials, who may be found responsible in this connection. The compensation must be paid within three months. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)