Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Sumit Kumar, Son of Shri Shankar Jha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna Bihar –Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.333 of 2020
Decided On : 22- 12-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to AG.
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to live with dignity – Plight of Truck drivers – Truck drivers in our country are amongst most vulnerable sections of our society – Backbone of national economy is dependent upon untiring and ever driving efforts and labour of poor, mostly illiterate and vulnerable – Torture, either mental or physical, represents worst violations of individual human personality, an outright and premeditated attack on human dignity – It has no place in governance of State and its legitimate use of force – In any democracy, right to live with dignity and self-worth, cannot be violently defiled within ambit of Rule of Law and good governance – Truck drivers are faced with a great deal of high stress and pressure as part of their job – Introduction of additional hassle and trauma, perpetuated by authorities, through use of hostility and torture is akin to grave human injustice – Such practices are a clear violation of human rights guaranteed to every citizen of world – With failure of State to protect its citizens, it becomes responsibility and duty of Judiciary to intervene in aid of these most downtrodden and helpless individuals – Right under Article 21 cannot be kept in abeyance for convicts, undertrials and prisoners – Allowing Police to violate fundamental rights of such persons would amount to anarchy and lawlessness which cannot be permitted in a civilized society. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 55-I(iii))
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 41B, 41D and 157 – Illegal detention of Milk Tanker driver by Police – Vehicle and detenu were detained and kept in police custody for more than 35 days without either filing of FIR or following any other procedure of arrest prescribed in law, ensuring constitutional protections to all persons – Detaining a person directly affects their fundamental right of life and personal liberty – Procedure established by law must be followed under all circumstances – Version of Police, of apprehending accused on account of an alleged accident, falls short of compliance of procedure established by law – Therefore any detention made by the Police in this case, is completely illegal, unlawful, in contravention of constitutional and statutory provision and direct violation of detenue's fundamental rights – There is clear infraction of Sections 41B, 41D and 157 of Cr.P.C. – All this has rendered police officer responsible for detention, liable for prosecution under Section 166 IPC – Simply taking up action of initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not enough – Entire Police Force needs to be sensitized of constitutional and statutory rights of detenu/accused, also from angle of human rights. (Paras 18, 19, 26 and 37)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357-A – Illegal detention of Milk Tanker driver by Police – Truck drivers face constant problems with authorities during their course of travel – There is an immediate need to improve conditions of truck drivers in State of Bihar as well as across the country – Mere absence of custodial violence would not preclude victim from grant of compensation – State of Bihar shall pay compensation to detenu an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India, within a period of six weeks from today – Directions issued. (Paras 56, 57, 60, 61 and 63)
AIR 1997 SC 610; (1997) 1 SCC 416; (1994) 4 SCC 260; (2014) 8 SCC 273; (2016) 11 SCC 703; (2014) 2 SCC 1; (2015) 6 SCC 439; (2014) 4 SCC 453; 2020 SCCC OnLine SC 623; (2017) 16 SCC 169; (2002) 10 SCC 283; (2010) 6 SCC 768; (1983) 4 SCC 141; (1985) 4 SCC 676 ; (1989) 4 SCC 730 ; (1993) 2 SCC 746; (1995) 6 SCC 357; (1995) SCC (Cri) 1156 ; (1995) 3 SCC 757; (2012) 8 SCC 1; (2018) 10 SCC 804; (2018) 9 SCC 501; (2017) 10 SCC 1; (2007) 1 SCC 70; (2008) 16 SCC 14; (2018) 10 SCC 753; (2009) 4 SCC 437; (2011) 13 SCC 329 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Torture, either mental or physical, represents the worst violations of individual human personality, an outright and premeditated attack on human dignity. It has no place in the governance of the State and its legitimate use of force. In any democracy, the right to live with dignity and self-worth, cannot be violently defiled within the ambit of Rule of Law and good governance.
2. Truck drivers in our country are amongst the most vulnerable sections of our society. The backbone of the national economy is dependent upon the untiring and ever driving efforts and labour of the poor, mostly illiterate and the vulnerable. In the absence of the hard work and toil of truck drivers, economic activity throughout the country is bound to come to a standstill.
3. Truck drivers lack proper education; proper healthcare; face daily hardships; have strained and unstable personal relationships; and most importantly are most susceptible to be at odds with the law and the functionaries of the State. These individuals are under the constant, endless pressure to make ends meet and ensure the survival of their families. It is these vulnerabilities that make them prone to derelictions of the “dark side of human civilization.”
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, has observed that “12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.” (emphasis supplied)
5. Truck drivers are faced with a great deal of high stress and pressure as part of their job. The introduction of the additional hassle and trauma, perpetuated by the authorities, through the use of hostility and torture is akin to grave human injustice. Such practices are a clear violation of the human rights guaranteed to every citizen of the world. With the failure of the State to protect its citizens, it becomes the responsibility and duty of the Judiciary to intervene in aid of these most downtrodden and helpless individuals.
6. All these issues arise for consideration in the present petition.
7. According to the petitioner, since 29th April, 2020, the Police officials of Parsa Police Station, District Saran illegally detained his vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55P-5954 along with its driver, namely, Jitendra Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar (referred to as the detenue), and consequently, sought-(a) release of the vehicle; (b) release of the driver (detenue); (c) adequate compensation for such illegal detention.
8. This Court issued a notice on 3rd June 2020 and based on response filed and submissions made, on 4th June 2020, passed the following order:-
"04.06.2020 Through a WhatsApp message Shri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned Assistant counsel to learned Advocate General, has forwarded the report prepared by the police officer of Parsa Police Station, in the District of Saran. According to the Police, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55P-5954, namely, Jitendra Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar, was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and after hurting a pedestrian, he fled away from the spot with the vehicle. The said vehicle intercepted by the police officials of Dariyapur Police Station District-Saran, who in turn handed over the Driver and the Vehicle to the Police Officials of Parsa Police Station, District-Saran. According to the report, the driver of the vehicle was not detained. The report also reveals that now an F.I.R. dated 3.6.2020 stands registered at the Parsa Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the course of hearing, Shri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned Assistant Counsel to learned Advocate General, under instructions from the officer(s) of concerned police station, states that the driver of
