Police officers are duty-bound to follow the prescribed guidelines for arrest and detention and are liable for any custodial violence or torture inflicted upon persons in their custody.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge.

“Nothing is more cowardly and unconscionable than a person in police custody being beaten up and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our constitutional culture than a State official running berserk regardless of human rights”. (Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev etc. versus State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 625).

2. The petitioner claims himself to be a victim of custodial torture and has filed this writ petition claiming therein the following reliefs:-

“(i) Direct that a case be registered against respondent No.5, for having illegally arrested, detained and physically tortured the petitioner in custody; in the most inhuman manner.

(ii) Award adequate compensation to the petitioner for the custodial torture of the petitioner.

(iii) Quash the inquiry conducted by the SDM and the consequent reinstatement of respondent No.5.

(iv) Direct that the investigation in the case be conducted by an independent high-ranking official of police/ the crime branch.

(v) Direct that a copy of the medical report of the petitioner be given to him.

(vi) Direct that a copy of the inquiry report conducted by the SDM be given to him.

(vii) The respondent No.5 may be directed to be transferred from P.S. Dharamshala to any other place so that he may not influence with course of the investigation.

(viii) Proceedings for contempt of Court be initiated against respondent No.5 for having willfully and knowingly violated the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “D.K.Basu versus State of West Bengal”.

(ix) Issue any other order, writ or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. It is averred that the petitioner is a Commerce Graduate and belongs to a respectable family and his father is a very senior and well-known Chartered Accountant. At the relevant time, the petitioner was running a Banquet Hall and Restaurant by the name of ‘Kashish’. There was only one room attached to the Banquet Hall which was primarily meant for the parties booking the hall for changing their clothes or keeping their belongings, but the same was never offered for rental.

4. On 24.08.2005 while petitioner was away, then at about 4.40 p.m., 4-5 ladies accompanied by two or three men came to the restaurant and after being served water, ordered cold drinks and later placed order for chilly chicken. The waiter called the cook, who was on rest, for preparation of the food, however, in the meantime, (within 5 to 7 minutes) of the men and ladies having entered the place, a police party led by SHO, Dharamshala, R.P.Jaswal, accompanied by video camera operator of the local cable channel reached the restaurant and made enquiries from the men and ladies and the restaurant staff. The long and short of the story is that an FIR No.216/2005 (for short ‘FIR’) came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short the ‘Act’) on the allegations that there was a sex racket being carried out in these premises.

5. The petitioner claimed to have arrived at the Banquet Hall at about 6.10/6.20 p.m. in response to a telephonic call made by his father at about 5.30 p.m. It is thereafter claimed that while in the lock up, the petitioner at about 11.00 p.m. was asked to sign blank papers and on refusing to do so, he was abused and mercilessly beaten up by respondent No.5 SHO. The beating was so severe and relentless that the same caused grievous injury in the ear of the petitioner. On these allegations, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the reliefs as already set out hereinabove.

6. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Home), District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kangra, who have been arrayed as respondents No.1, 2 and 4, respectively, have filed their joint reply wherein it is admitted that the petitioner is running the restaurant and letting the same