IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SONIA GOKANI, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
Sureshbhai Mangaji Padhiyar - Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Others – Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application No. 3156 Of 2020
Decided On : 24-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. habeas corpus petition for illegal detention. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner seeks justice for unlawful custody. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analyzes legality of police detention practices. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. court emphasizes legal standards for arrests. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sonia Gokani, J.)
1. This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the applicant, who seeks issuance writ of habeas corpus or another appropriate writ for obtaining the custody of his son Falgun, who is illegally confined and detained by respondent No.5, who happened to be the Police Inspector of Meghaninagar police station.
2. Facts in nutshell are presented in the following factual background:
2.1 Brother of the corpus was arrested and detained in the custody of Meghaninagar police station as a preventive measure by the police officer as per section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The corpus was picked up from his vicinity on 29.06.2020 and was made to stay in the lock up for the entire night. It is alleged that he was subjected to police brutality and custodial violence. On the next day i.e. on 30.06.2020 he was presented before the learned Magistrate and was bailed out with other individuals, who were detained. The complaint was made to the learned Magistrate about the custodial violence and the torture committed by the police personnel of Meghaninagar. On hearing the grievance, the learned Magistrate had directed the Chief Medical Officer of Civil Hospital to get them examined.
2.2 Instead of taking the corpus and others to the Civil Hospital, the police officers of Meghaninagar police station took them back to the Meghaninagar police station where they were again beaten with lathi and rods. They were specifically instructed not to reveal these bruises and marks to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) by taking their clothes off and they were deterred not to reveal the names of the police officers, who had beaten them.
2.3 The brother of the corpus revealed his injuries to the CMO. Learning this aspect, the police officers had again beaten him up. This inhuman act had resulted into calling the police control room. However, no complaint was lodged and mere statement of the brother of the petitioner was recorded.
2.4 The police officer of Meghaninagar police station, with an intention to suppress the say of the petitioner against the custodial violence, visited the house of the petitioner on 01.07.2020 and had taken away the corpus along with them. He was detained in the police custody for the entire night and on the next day when the petitioner had again come to Meghaninagar police station, he was being informed that the corpus is detained and is quarantined in an isolated place.
2.5 To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, it was informed that First Information Report was lodged against the corpus and other relatives of the petitioner under sections 143,147, 336 and 118 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , the First Information Report bearing First Information Report No.11191033201407 of 2020. Learning about the wrongful detention of the corpus, the mother of the corpus had sent a representation dated 02.07.2020 addressed to respondent No.1 for releasing the corpus.
2.6 Another representation addressed to respondent no.3 dated 03.07.2020, and a representation dated 04.07.2020 was sent to respondent No.5 for releasing his son for wrongful confinement and detention.
2.7 Corpus being a boy, aged 21 years, was detained in the Meghaninagar police station at the time of pandemic. The petitioner suspected the conduct of the police officer of the police station being quite suspicious, anticipated the corpus to be exposed to the deadly Covid-19 virus to create tyrant effect on the petitioner and his family. The corpus, as urged by the petitioner, cannot be detained without being produced before the Magistrate, tha
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Another
Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India and Others
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1984) Supp. S.C.C. 504 and (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677
State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravikant S.Patil
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr.
D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal
Bhim Singh Vs State of J & K., (1984) (Supp) SCC
Saheli Vs. Commissioner of Police. Delhi (1990) (1) SCC 422
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'Public Law Damage', which empowers constitutional courts to award compensation under public law to redress grievances arising fro....
The judgment established the principle that illegal detention and malicious prosecution by the police warrant the grant of compensation under the public law remedy, emphasizing the violation of funda....
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in police custody; custodial deaths demand scrutiny and compensatory measures for rights violations.
Compensation for violations of Article 21 is a public law remedy, essential for enforcing accountability and deterring state misconduct, distinct from private law remedies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.