Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo, JJ.
Bipin Bihari Behera - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
WPCRL No. 36 of 2024
Decided On : 17-05-2024
HABEAS CORPUS - ILLEGAL DETENTION - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 399, 402; Supreme Court Judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC concerning the alleged offenses and emphasized the importance of CCTV footage as per the Supreme Court's directive in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh. The malfunctioning of CCTV equipment was highlighted as a significant issue, impacting the ability to verify the legality of the police's actions. The court concluded that the petitioner's sons were not entitled to habeas corpus relief but could seek bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for habeas corpus on behalf of his two sons, who were allegedly picked up by police on 12th March 2024 and were in illegal custody until their detention order on 17th March 2024. The petitioner claimed that his sons could not have committed the alleged offenses under IPC Sections 399 and 402 during the time they were in custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police's claim of malfunctioning CCTV equipment hindered the verification of the petitioner's allegations. The court noted that while the sons of the petitioner were in judicial custody, the evidence presented by the petitioner regarding their presence in the locality was significant but did not warrant immediate release through habeas corpus. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the allegations at trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's sons were in illegal custody prior to their detention and whether the habeas corpus petition should be granted based on the alleged illegal detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the malfunctioning of CCTV equipment, as per the Supreme Court's directive, raised concerns about the police's actions but did not provide sufficient grounds for habeas corpus relief. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the legality of the detention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of without granting habeas corpus relief, allowing the petitioner to seek bail for his sons in the appropriate court.
JUDGMENT
Arindam Sinha, J.
Two sons of petitioner are in jail custody following order made by the competent Court for their detention on and from 17th March, 2024. The writ petition carrying prayer for issuance of habeas corpus was presented on 16th April, 2024. Petitioner's case is, his sons were picked up on 12th March, 2024 by personnel from Chhendipada P.S. They were in illegal police custody since then. They could not have committed alleged offence under sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as on the intervening night of 16th and 17th March, 2024. Sons of petitioner along with seven others were allegedly picked up by the police on said intervening night. We reproduce paragraph-4 from our order made, upon the writ moved on 24th April, 2024.
'4. It appears from FIR registered on 17th March, 2024 by the SI of Chhendipada PS that, inter alia, said opposite party nos.5 and 6 were picked up in the intervening night of 16th and 17th March, 2024 on being approached by the authorized police party along with witnesses. The SI heard the persons discussing their plan in committing highway dacoity. Considering petitioner's allegations that said opposite parties were, since prior to 16th /17th March, 2024, in illegal police custody (without arrest), we require report in sealed cover to be filed by State through concerned PS/Officer.'
Report in sealed cover was filed. The report did not say anything new or apart from what was already known by Court.
2. Upon petitioner prosecuting the writ petition we had called it on 8th May, 2024. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State had handed up his instruction dated 5th May, 2024, penned by I.I.C., Chhendipada P.S. We had extracted a paragraph therefrom in our order made that day, for information of petitioner. The extracted paragraph is reproduced below.
'With reference to the above cited WPCRL reference and subject, I have the honour to report that I verified the CCTV footage installed in the PS and its premises, but unfortunately it was found not functioning during the alleged date i.e. from 12.3.2024 to 17.3.2024, due to some technical issues. I have entered the fact in PS station diary about the non-functioning of CCTV installed in PS and intimated SP Angul accordingly. Further to clarify about the presence of Babun Kumar Behera and Papun Kumar Behera in the period from 12.3.2024 to 17.3.2024, I examined five local individuals namely, Chhabindra Majhi, S/o-Padmanave Majhi of village Kankurupal, Pramod Naik S/o- Late Biswanath Naik of Badaberena, Sahadev Behera, S/o- Late Kanduru Behera of Chhendipada, Tankadhar Behera S/o- Late Krushna Chandra Behera of Chhendipada, and Sibaram Majhi S/o- Late Hrusikesh Majhi of village Kankurupal, all are of PS Chhendipada, Dist. Angul, who well proved the presence of Babun Kumar Behera and Papun Kumar Behera in their village Kankurupal and in locality in different dates and times from 12.3.2024 to 17.3.2024. The said individuals also submitted their statements in the form of affidavits before the Executive Magistrate, Chhendipada, which proved the activities of Babun Kumar Behera and Papun Kumar Behera in the locality between 12.3.2024 to 17.3.2024, enclosed herewith for your kind perusal.'
3. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh delivered on 2nd December, 2020 by a larger Bench and reported in 2021 (I) OLR (SC) 211. Paragraph-16 is reproduced below.
'16. The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning in the respective State and/or Union Territory. Further, in order to ensure that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered, it is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all every and exit points; main gate of the police station; all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby/the reception area; all verandas/outh
The failure to disclose grounds for arrest and non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered the detention illegal, warranting intervention via habeas corpus.
Fabrication and backdating of documents, non-functioning of CCTV cameras in police stations
The Court ruled that illegal detention violates constitutional rights and statutory procedures, mandating police compliance with judicial orders.
Habeas corpus not maintainable against private parties for child custody; pursue in family court.
The court affirmed that arrests lacking proper justification and statutory compliance are illegal, invoking constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22.
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
