Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1549
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni, JJ.
Kanhaiya Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 156 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Mr. Rakesh Arora, Advocate with Mr. Hardik Gautam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG, for the Respondent. Mr. Amit Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh. Mr. Ravindra Singh, SHO (the then), P.S. Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Present in person.
The court established that handcuffing and illegal detention without due process violate constitutional rights, necessitating strict adherence to legal standards.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Detention and Handcuffing - IPC Sections 452, 323, 307, 34; Cr.P.C. Section 57; Article 22(2) - The court emphasized the constitutional mandate against handcuffing and illegal detention, ruling that the actions of the police were unconstitutional and required immediate inquiry and corrective measures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention and handcuffing of his son based on an FIR. The son was admitted to a hospital and was reportedly handcuffed, preventing family visits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the son was not in a prisoners' ward and that the allegations of illegal detention and handcuffing were baseless. The court condemned the police's actions as unconstitutional and ordered an inquiry.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's son was illegally detained and handcuffed without due process, violating constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that handcuffing without lawful arrest and restricting family access violated constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for adherence to Supreme Court directives regarding the treatment of individuals in custody.
Result: The petition is disposed of with directions for an inquiry into the police's actions and adherence to constitutional mandates.
ORDER
1. This petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner with the allegations that an FIR No.192/2023 came to be registered inter alia against his son at 20:07 hours with allegations of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 307 and 34 IPC. Allegations were made that based on the said FIR, the respondent no.3 came to the hospital where the petitioner's was admitted and arrested and shifted him to prisoners' ward, where he was handcuffed.
2. Further submissions were made that without any further action as envisaged under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner's son has been detained in the hospital and has been handcuffed. The family members are not being permitted to meet him and, therefore, as the detention of the petitioner's son is in violation of mandate of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and the handcuffing is contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia in Prem Shanker Shukala v. Delhi Administration: (1980) 3 SCC 526, therefore, the respondents be directed to produce the corpus before the Court from the illegal detention and be ordered to be set free.
3. By order dated 17.5.2023, copy of the petition was supplied to learned AAG, who was directed to complete his instructions in the matter / file factual report and the matter was fixed for 23.5.2023.
4. On 23.5.2023, on the allegations in the petition pertaining to detention without following the due process and handcuffing of petitioner's son, a factual report by the SHO, Police Station, Pratapgarh, was filed giving out details about the FIR lodged inter alia against the petitioner's son and indicating that he was admitted in the hospital and would be arrested only after his discharge from the hospital, however, not a word was indicated in relation to the allegations made in the petition regarding illegal detention of petitioners' son and his handcuffing. Therefore, on 23.5.2023, this Court, when counsel for the petitioner produced a picture of petitioner's son showing him in handcuffs tide to the hospital bed, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to immediately require the CJM, Pratapgarh, to visit the hospital and find out the factual status pertaining to lodging of petitioner's son in prisoners' ward and being handcuffed.
5. A report was produced by the officiating CJM inter alia indicating that petitioner's son was lying on general ward bed no.36, his left leg was plastered and a handcuff was tide to the bed, though petitioner's son was not handcuffed and while taking picture he held the handcuffs in his hand. In the statement given by the petitioner's son, he indicated that the police people handcuff him every evening and open the same in the morning and that he was not permitted to meet the family members.
6. On receiving the said report, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and SHO concerned of Police Station, Pratapgarh, to remain personally present before this Court on 25.5.2023.
7. On 25.5.2023, Mr. Amit Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, was present before the Court, who informed the Court that SHO, Police Station, Pratapgarh and the Investigating Officer in the matter have been suspended and that inquiry against them would be initiated, however, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up and the matter was ordered to be listed today.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions based on the report submitted by the officiating CJM, Pratapgarh, that the respondents have been acting in a wholly unconstitutional and high-handed manner, whereby, without showing arrest of petitioner's son, he has been detained at the hospital and is being handcuffed by the respondents, which is ex-facie in violation of the various directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia in the case of Prem Shanker Shukala (supra).
9. Further submissions have been made that as it has been established that the petitioner's son has been detained without following due
