Patna, Aug. 17: Bihar State Human Rights Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs 50,000 to a man who was forced to stay inside prison even after the completion of his jail term.

The commission’s order, which was delivered on August 16 by its chairman, Justice S.N. Jha, directed the state government to submit the compliance report within six weeks after delivering the judgement.

The case is related to one Chandrabhan Ojha, a resident of Siwan district, who was awarded seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code (kidnapping, abduction or inducing a woman to compel her marriage), and fine of Rs 1,000. The judgement also said in case of the non-payment of fine, the convict would have to serve two more months in jail.

Ojha, in his application to the commission, said he had paid the fine on April 1, 2009 and should have been released after the completion of the seven-year jail term (including remissions) on May 20, 2009. However, he was released from the jail on July 20, 2009. The petitioner claimed that the last two months of his jail term was unauthorised.

The jail department in its submission before the commission claimed that the court concerned is required to send the intimation about the payment of fine and no such intimation was received in this case. Even the applicant did not inform the jail authorities about the payment and so on the ground that the fine amount had not been paid, he was kept in detention for the additional two months.

The applicant, on the other hand, has produced the document supporting his claim of depositing the fine.

After hearing both the sides, the commission observed that even if it was true that the intimation was not given to the jail, it would not absolve the state of its liability.

So far as the applicant is concerned, it he had paid the fine, it would follow that continuation of his imprisonment for the additional two months was without any authority of law, which would entitle the applicant of compensation from the state.

The commission also observed that it might absolve the jail authority of the responsibility in view of rules of Jail Manual, the state cannot escape responsibility. “Courts also are organs of the state and for any act of omission and commission of the court staff, the state would be held liable. In any view, the applicant, after payment of fine, had no role to play in the matter and he, therefore, cannot be denied relief,” the commission further observed.

The commission also observed that no court or commission or authority could restore the liberty, which the applicant was denied between May 20, 2009 and July 20, 2009. “The deprivation of his right to liberty can, however, be somewhat compensated by awarding a monetary compensation,” the commission observed.