Ravikant Patil vs Director General of Police & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(Bom) 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar R.G. Sindhakar, JJ.
Ravikant Patil... Petitioner.
Versus
Director General of Police others... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1199 of 1989, decided on 14-2-1990.
Advocates appeared :
M.A. Rane with Deepak R. More and V.M. Thorat, for petitioner.
N.M. Kachare, Public Prosecutor, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Headnote:Articles 21, 226-Persnnal liberty-Violation of-Under trial prisoner handcuffed and paraded through streets-No justification-Rules of Bombay Police Manual dis-regarded.
       Held-Fundamental right of personal liberty under Article 21 violated Under-trial prisoner subjected to indignity and humiliation. Petitioner en: titled to compensation under Article 226. Amount of Rs. 10,000/-to be paid as compensation.
       Articles 19, 21, 22 (2) and 226-Fundamental rights of citizens-Handcuffing and ropping of under-trials-Handcuffing not essential compulsorily-It may be allowed in absence of any other practicability-Infringement of fundamental right-Compensation can be paid to affected person the 4th respondent has subjected the petitioner to wholly unwarranted humitation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of India irrespective of whether he is accused of a minor offence or of a major offence the nature of the offence will attract the appropriate punishment from the Court. The past, history, of particular under-trail prisoner is wholly irrelevant to the question as to whether he has to be handcuffed and roped in the manner in which the petitioner has been subjected to. It is possible that a particular prisoner might have shown proclivity of escaping from police custody.
       In such a case, probably the handcuffing to the extent it is necessary to prevent an attempt at escaping may be justified. It has not been contended by the 4th respondent nor is there any material before us to show that the petitioner had at any time made an attempt to escape from police custody.
       Article 226 of the Constitution specifically provides that the High Court may issue to any person or authority directions for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. The 4th respondent is a person. He is also a person in whom authority is vested under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has abused that authority. He has acted outside the scope of that authority. He has acted outside the scope of the law which given him that authority. He has acted outside the rules which he must follow while exercising that authority. Court has therefore, no hesitation in holding that in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, Court can also direct that compensation shall be paid by the State or a person acting on behalf of the State to a citizen whose fundamental rights have been trajpled upon.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with a murder of one Ganesh Kolekar, which took place in Solapur on 2nd August, 1989. The petition seeks to censure the 3rd and 4th respondents for the action which they have taken against the petitioner, described hereinafter in greater details. The 1st respondent is the Director General of Police, while the 2nd respondent is this judgment because ultimately what we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the 4th respondent in such as to merit censure and also such as to result in the payment of compensation to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is the Superintendent of Police. According to the petitioner, the Acts complainted of by the petitioner against the 4th respondent were at the instance of the 3rd respondent. After going through the material on record, it has not been possible for us to accept the case of the petitioner that it was at the instance and the behest of the 3rd respondent that the 4th respondent committed the Acts of which complaint has been made in this petition. Hence, we will also not be referring to the 3rd respondent in this judgment. The 4th respondent is the Inspector of Police, who was a the relevant time in charge of Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur.

2. Facts which have been clearly established on the basis of the material brought on record through the affidavits may be straight away stated. We have already mentioned above that one Ganesh Kolekar was murdered on 2nd of August, 1980. First Information Report in connection with that murder did not include the name of the petitioner as one of the suspects. However, during the course of the investigation, the police suspected that the petitioner was a party to the said murder and naturally he was to be arrested. The petitioner was in fact arrested later at a place called Tumkar in Karnataka State and was brought to Solapur in the early hours of 17th August, 1989. The police allege that the murder of Ganesh Kolekar was a culmination of a warfare between two gangs in Solapur. One Prakash Narote had already been arrested in connection with the said murder of Ganesh Kolekar.

3. A paper called Tarun Bharat, published from Solapur, carried in its issue of 17th of August, 1989 a news item submitted by its correspondent which said that the petitioner would be taken in a procession or a parade from Faujdar Chavadi Police Station through the main squares of the city for the purpose of investigation. This is some what unusual because the story is detailed 16th August, 1989; the accused was brought to Solapur, according to the affidavit of the 4th respondent, half an hour after midnight of 16th and 17th August, 1989. It may be that the correspondent of this newspaper had come to know that the petitioner had been arrested at Tumkur as mentioned above. The fact that there was a news that the petitioner would be taken out in a perade from Faujdar Chavadi Police Station through the main squares of Solapur is of some significance. There are several other facts mentioned in this copy filed by the correspondent of this paper. However, we are not taking any cognisance of the same because they are strictly of no evidentiary value as far as this petition is concerned.

4. On 17th of August, 1989, as predicted by the paper, 'Tarun Bharat', the petitioner was handcuffed and both his arms were tied by a rope and he was taken through the streets and squares of Solapur. This fact is admitted on behalf of the respondents, in the middle part of paragraph 9 of his affidavit-in-raply, the 4th respondent has stated as follows:---

"It is true that the petitioner was handcuffed and tied with rope while he was taken to the above-referred place for investigation purpose."

The places referred to will be mentioned by us in a short while and when, we do so, it would be clear that they are all prominent places in Sol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document