सव भव तु सिखनः ु the deceased prisoner for the viola on of his human rights. Based on these observa ons, the Commission issued a show cause no ce under Sec on 18 of the PHRA to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, as to why the Commission should not recommend a monetary compensa on of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the NoK of the deceased. The Commission also directed the Director General of Prisons, Bihar, to conduct an enquiry into the ma er, take appropriate ac on against the responsible officials, and submit an ac on taken report. Furthermore, the Commission issued instruc ons to the District Magistrate, Patna, and the Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar, to promptly submit an ac on taken report based on the findings of the medico-legal examinaon report and ini ate a c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n v e s g a o n b y registering a criminal case under Sec on 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Magistrate, Patna, was specifically directed to provide a detailed report on the ac ons taken against the Execu ve Magistrate who conducted the Magisterial Enquiry, as it was discovered that she did not adhere to the guidelines set forth by the NHRC. Following the direc ves of the Commission, a le er dated 19 July 2022 was received from the Assistant Inspector General (Prison), Bihar, affirming that appropriate departmental ac on had been taken against the warden. However, the Commission noted that the ini a on of departmental ac on against the delinquent jail official does not absolve the State of its vicarious liability to provide compensa on to the NoK of the deceased prisoner, who was murdered within the confines of the jail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Nilaba Behera case, explicitly emphasised that convicts, prisoners, or under-trials are en tled to the protec on of their fundamental rights under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on, and the police and prison authori es bear the corresponding responsibility to ensure that individuals in custody are not deprived of their Right to Life. It further observed that the State has an unwavering duty of care to ensure that the guarantee of Ar cle 21 is upheld for all individuals and must accept responsibility by providing compensa on to the grieving family members of an individual who has been unlawfully deprived of his life. This duty of care is absolute and allows for no excep ons. Consequently, the Commission reaffirmed its recommenChapter 7 - Thematic Areas da on and directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to provide monetary compensa- on of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the NoK of the deceased. Accordingly, a le er dated 12 December 2022 from the District Magistrate, Patna, was received, along with proof of payment. Hence, the case was closed on 27 January 2023. 7.) Illegal Arrest and Deten on, by the police of PS Cyber Crime, Lucknow, U.P., on the premises of HDFC Bank in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. (Case No: 16413/24/48/2019) The Commission received a complaint on 20 June 2019 from the Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Ini a ve (CHRI), alleging the illegal arrest and deten on of her brother by the police of PS Cyber Crime, Lucknow, U.P., at the premises of HDFC Bank in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. Upon receiving this complaint, the Commission took ac on by referring the ma er to the SP, Cyber Crime, Lucknow, through the Focal Point for Human Rights Defender. A team from the Commission conducted a spot inquiry into the incident and subsequently submi ed their report for review. According to the report's findings, the person had been apprehended by the police team of P.S. Cyber Cell, Lucknow, with the assistance of STF Unit, Noida, from the premises of OBC Bank Branch located in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, on 13 June 2019 at 13:54 hours. He was then transported to Lucknow without complying with any legal formali es as s pulated by the law. The official record indicated that his arrest was documented by the police at the Charbagh Railway Sta on tempo stand in Lucknow, U ar Pradesh, on 14 June 2019 at 23:50 hours. This arrest was made in connecon with a bank fraud case. Following his arrest, the vic m was subsequently presented before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Custom in Lucknow on the following day and was subsequently sent to the district jail located in Lucknow. The enquiry conducted by the Commission yielded conclusive evidence of unlawful deten on by the police. It was determined that he had been in police custody for more than 48 hours. However, the enquiry could not substan ate the allega on of police assault due to a lack 27