Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 147
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
A. Sethuraman & Another
Versus
The State, Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.T.C., C.B. C.I.D., Egmore
Crl. O.P. Nos. 980 & 1008 of 2015
Decided on: 28-01-2015
For the Petitioners:C.D. Johnson, D. Jaganathan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S. Shanumgavelayutham Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mohamed Riyaz, G.A. (Crl.Side)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional duty of the court to protect individual liberty while also safeguarding the State's interest in prosecuting criminals. The judgment emphasizes the need to grant anticipatory bail to innocent individuals and the responsibility of the court to ensure human rights protection.
Headnote:
Pre-arrest Bail - Police Atrocities - Sections 323, 330, 355, 506 (ii), 10 & 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2002 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C, the essential requirements to invoke it, and the principles governing grant of bail in non-bailable offences. The court emphasized the need to protect innocent individuals from arrest and highlighted the constitutional duty of the court to safeguard individual liberty while also protecting the interest of the State in prosecuting criminals. The judgment also referenced landmark cases and legal principles related to arrest, human rights, and police atrocities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were police head constables, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of torture on young boys while they were in police custody. The victims, alleged to be urchins, were accused of property offences. The case gained attention after a news item was published, leading to the petitioners being implicated. The prosecution contended that the boys suffered inhuman treatment and police atrocities while in custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, citing strong incriminating materials against the petitioners and the need for their custodial interrogation. It expressed concerns about the safety of the victims and their families if the petitioners were released, highlighting the tendency of the petitioners to intimidate and pose a challenge to the law.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the alleged police atrocities on young boys, the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, and the safety of the victims and their families.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional duty to protect individual liberty while also acknowledging the State's interest in prosecuting criminals. It discussed the essential requirements and principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the need to safeguard innocent individuals from arrest and the responsibility of the court to ensure human rights protection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail, considering the serious nature of the offences, the potential threat posed by the petitioners, and the need for their custodial interrogation.
Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Offences alleged are under Sections 323, 330, 355, 506 (ii) and Sections 10 & 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2002 in Crime No.1 of 2015.
3. Sethuraman (petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 980/2014) and Srinivasan (petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 1008/2015) are A-1 and A-2.
4. Petitioners are Police Head Constables serving in Crime Section of R-1 Mambalam Police Station.
5. Petitioners were alleged to have tortured certain young boys while they were in their custody.
6. According to Mr. C.D. Johnson, the learned counsel for A-1, the alleged victims in this case are urchins. They were alleged to have committed certain property offences. The present case came into limelight after a news item came in the daily, Times of India. By way of cover up operation, petitioner has been targeted and implicated in this case.
7. The learned counsel for A-1 further submitted that the alleged victims or their parents never complained about any ill-treatment meeted out to the boys, while they were in police custody. All the story-telling, concoction comes out only when they came out of jail. They were tutored. They are parrot-like. They have no regard for truth.
8. The learned counsel for A-1 further contended that the opinion of Dr. Rajeswaran suggests that the alleged ailment of Sathish Kumar would not have occurred while he was in police custody. Since a news item appeared in Times of India, petitioner has been included in this case on the basis of an one-sided Special Report of C.B.C.I.D.
9. The learned counsel for A-1 also contended that it is all because of the Press. The Press went out of the way. Press had magnified the matter. Blown out of proportion. Actually it is trial by Press.
10. The learned counsel for A-1 further submitted that A-1 is quite innocent. If arrested, he will be humiliated. His name and fame will be tarnished. Thus, he may be granted anticipatory bail.
11. Mr. D. Jaganathan, the learned counsel for A-2 reiterated the above submissions. He also contended that this case has been foisted against A-2. He is innocent. His arrest is unwarranted.
12. Prosecution filed counter.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case of atrocity committed on young boys by certain members of uniformed force. It is a case of fence eating the grass. It exhibits utter indiscipline on the part of the petitioners.
14. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if a person has been booked under criminal law, the offence alleged against him has to be investigated in accordance with law. There is no sanction of law to ill-treat him because he has become an accused. Young boys were subjected to untold miseries, most inhuman treatment.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor drawn our attention to the statement of the victim boys recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the opinion of Dr. Sankar, the Jail hospital Doctor and submitted that they show that the boys suffered most disgraceful treatment, while they were in the custody of the petitioners.
16. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after regaining their liberty, strength they have revealed the ill-treatment they suffered at the hands of these policemen. Sathish Kumar, a victim boy also stated about the ill-treatment to co-prisoners, while he was a remand prisoner in jail.
17. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that since this atrocity has been brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, he ordered immediate action. There was no let-up on the part of the police because the accused are policemen. The accused have no regard for law, decency and morality. They deserve no sympathy. Investigation pending.
18. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the injuries on the victims are result of police torture.
19. The learned counsel for the Intervenor cited MOFIL KHAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2015(1) SCC
