Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
A. Sudalai Vadivoo – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of custodial torture. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. responses asserting truth and rejecting allegations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial consideration of submitted complaints. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. custodial torture violations are serious. (Para 11) |
| 5. court affirms right to investigate custodial torture claims. (Para 12) |
| 6. direction for cbcid enquiry. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
(N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to order for an enquiry to be undertaken by a high-profile senior police officer of CBCID against respondents 6 to 8 in respect of the alleged custodial torture of the husband of the petitioner, who is an accused (A10) in Crime No.118 of 2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 03.08.2023 one Mayandi was done to death and in that connection, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.118 of 2023. In this FIR, the brother-in-law of the petitioner namely Arumugam was added as A2 and the husband of the petitioner was added as A9. It is alleged that respondents 6 to 8 illegally detained the husband of the petitioner for more than 24 hours and he was beaten black and b
Custodial torture allegations, supported by medical evidence, require independent investigation to uphold fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Custodial torture allegations necessitate immediate FIR registration; a preliminary inquiry is impermissible, reinforcing mandatory action under the law.
Custodial torture leading to death constitutes a violation of fundamental rights; adequate compensation is warranted.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied when serious allegations of custodial torture and potential witness tampering are present, especially involving politically influential individuals.
Court established that mere allegations of custodial torture are insufficient; claims must be substantiated by evidence of violation of fundamental rights to warrant compensation.
The court denied anticipatory bail due to prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in custodial torture and emphasized the importance of medical ethics in legal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
