Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan
Supreme Court of India, 29 May 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 599
A convict kept in prison for 24 days after a court ordered his release on parole and his sureties were verified suffered illegal detention under Article 21, and the State was ordered to pay him Rs. 11,00,000 compensation.
Facts
The appellant was sentenced in 1988 to four years' rigorous imprisonment for offences including Section 304 Part II IPC. His appeal was dismissed in 2021 and he was arrested on 23 December 2021. His application for permanent parole was rejected on 18 January 2024 because he had not first applied for regular parole. On 5 November 2024 a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed his petition and directed his release on bonds and sureties; by then he had served over three years of the sentence. The sureties were verified on 13 November 2024, but he was not released. On a habeas corpus petition, a Division Bench ordered his release forthwith on 6 December 2024. The State said it had been considering whether to challenge the parole order. The appellant sought compensation for the period of detention.
Questions before the Court
- Was the appellant's continued custody after the release order and verification of sureties illegal detention?
- Could the State justify the delay by saying the parole order was contrary to the Rajasthan Parole Rules and that it was considering an appeal?
- Is the appellant entitled to compensation, and in what amount?
What the Court held
- Illegal detention is the deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of the Constitution; detention permitted by law also becomes illegal if the procedure is not just, fair and reasonable, or the power is used arbitrarily or in bad faith.
- The State, which never challenged the Single Judge's order, could not question its legality at this stage. A court order binds until stayed, modified or set aside; merely contemplating or filing an appeal does not suspend it.
- Once parole was granted and sureties were produced to the court's satisfaction, the appellant's non-release became illegal detention. The State's plea that the compensation cases did not apply because he was a convict lawfully in prison was rejected: habeas corpus lies against any form of detention, and compensation is a recognised public law remedy.
- Liberty cannot be made to wait on slow administrative decisions about whether to appeal. For the 24 days of illegal custody the State was directed to pay Rs. 11,00,000 into the appellant's bank account, and the appeal was allowed.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the public law compensation remedy under Article 21 to a convict who was kept in custody after a court ordered his release on parole. It frames a working definition of illegal detention and holds that a release order must be obeyed unless a superior court stays it, so the State cannot hold a prisoner while it decides whether to appeal.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In our view, perhaps, it may be termed as follows: "The deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention." It involves actual custody such that the individual is not free to leave.”
“Once parole had been granted and sureties produced to the satisfaction of the concerned court, the non-release becomes illegal detention. That apart, reference to these judgments is to establish clearly that payment of compensation is an acceptable and recognised public law remedy.”
“The liberty of an individual is not a trivial matter. The State cannot continue curtailing the same in the face of a court order, on account of its slow bureaucratic processes of taking decisions whether to file appeals in a particular matter or not. If such a view is agreed to by us, it would amount to the liberty of a person being placed sub-par to the decision whether or not to file an appeal which is purely an administrative call. That cannot be countenanced.”
“We are of the considered view that such a contention must be forcefully negated for the simple reason that the respondent State has never, on its own, challenged the findings of the learned Single Judge. That being the case, it is not open for the respondent State to raise a question regarding the legality of the order at this belated stage.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5036 of 2025)
- Decided
- 29 May 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Sanjay Karol, J.