State Must Pay Compensation for Keeping a Prisoner in Jail After Court-Ordered Release: Supreme Court Says “Obey First, Appeal Later”
Case Name: Daudayal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 599
Date of Judgment/Order: May 29, 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that once a competent court directs release of a prisoner on parole and the required sureties are verified and furnished, the State cannot keep the prisoner in custody merely because it is considering whether to challenge the order. The Court reaffirmed the principle of “obey first, appeal later” and held that a judicial order remains binding unless it is stayed, modified or set aside by a superior court. Continued custody after compliance with the release conditions amounts to illegal detention and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further held that compensation is an available public law remedy for unlawful detention, even where the person is a convict, because a convict’s liberty also remains protected by law.
Summary: The appellant was convicted in a 1967 sessions case and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. After his appeal was dismissed, he was arrested in December 2021 and later sought permanent parole. The parole request was rejected because he had not earlier availed regular parole, but the High Court Single Judge allowed his writ petition on November 5, 2024 and directed his release on personal bond and sureties. Despite compliance with those conditions and verification of sureties, the appellant was not released until the Division Bench passed a further order on December 6, 2024. He claimed compensation for 24 days of illegal custody. The State argued that the parole order was contrary to the Rajasthan Parole Rules and that it was considering a challenge to the order. The Supreme Court rejected this defence, holding that the State never obtained any stay and could not make a court order ineffective by administrative delay or by deciding internally whether an appeal should be filed.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of INR 11,00,000 to the appellant for 24 days of illegal detention. The amount was directed to be deposited directly into the appellant’s bank account, details of which were to be furnished by the appellant’s counsel to the State’s counsel. The Court held that once the detenue had secured an order of release and the surety verification process was complete, the State was bound to release him, and failure to do so violated his fundamental right to liberty. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.