SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(P&H) 484

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sethi and G.S.Singhvi JJ.
Bhai Jasbir Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 2491 of 1994,
Decided On : MAY 20, 1994

The court emphasized the need to reconsider and modify the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual, particularly Para 441, to protect human rights and prevent police excesses in light of the development of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Headnote:

JUDICIAL REMAND - POLICE CUSTODY - INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS - PUNJAB JAIL MANUAL - MODIFICATION - PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - COURT'S DIRECTIONS:

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, arrested in an FIR for offenses under the Explosive Act and Arms Act, alleged that during judicial remand, he was taken to a police station, interrogated, and subjected to humiliation. He sought protection from being harmed or subjected to further intimidation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was taken to the police station due to a genuine belief that the jail authorities refused to accept him and other accused persons for the night. The court also noted that the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual, particularly Para 441, required reconsideration and modification to protect human rights and prevent police excesses.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's judicial custody was violated by taking him to a police station and subjecting him to interrogation? 2. Whether the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual, particularly Para 441, require reconsideration and modification to protect human rights?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's judicial custody was not violated as he was taken to the police station under a bona fide belief and not subjected to any harassment. The court relied on the provisions of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, the rules framed thereunder, and the Jail Manual to justify the petitioner's detention in the police lock-up. 2. The court found that the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual, particularly Para 441, required reconsideration and modification to protect human rights and prevent police excesses. The court noted that the Jail Manual was codified based on outdated provisions and did not consider the nature of offenses and the persons involved in such offenses in the present context.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the following interim arrangements: 1. Prisoners should be delivered for transfer custody in a manner that ensures their destination within the prescribed time for admission to the transferee jail. 2. Adequate transport arrangements should be made for the transfer of prisoners without delay. If a transferee prisoner cannot reach the transferred jail, they may be brought back or kept in the nearest jail. 3. Prisoners should be admitted to the jail between sunrise and sunset, with exceptions for women undertrial prisoners and male undertrial prisoners with red ink entries on their warrants. 4. Political undertrials or detenus should be admitted to the jail at any time they are presented by the police. 5. If a prisoner cannot be brought back or admitted to the transferee jail due to reasons beyond the control of the escorting officer, the matter must be reported to the court that remanded the accused person to judicial custody. The court may condone the lapse on sufficient grounds or report the matter to higher authorities for appropriate action.

Judgment

1. The petitioner who claims to be running Punjabi Daily Aj Di Awaj from Jalandhar alleges to have been arrested on 11-1-1994 from his office at Jalandhar by the police party commanded by Deputy Superintendent of Police (D) Satinder Singh and Inspector, Chanehal Singh of C.I.A. Staff. Eight other persons namely Bhai Jasbir Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Amrik Singh, Ajaib Singh, Devinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Gurdip Singh and Malkiat Singh were also arrested along with the petitioner. He was presented before the Court of S.D.M. Jalandhar on 12-1-1994 and remanded to judicial custody till 25-1-1994, which was extended for two more days on 28-1-1994 the petitioner was sent to Judicial custody till 12-2-1994 and thereafter was sent to judicial remand till 24-2-1994. The petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. dated 25-12-1993 for offences under Section 4/5, of the Explosive Act and Section 25, of the Arms Act. 1t was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused along with others had formed a group and collected lot of explosives and destructive material with the object of creating terror in high populated areas by firing and causing explosions and by a plan of hitting VIPs. It is submitted that on 12-2-1994 all the eight persons were take from the Jail for presenting them before the Court of Shri R. P. Bansal who extended their judicial remand till 24-2-1994. Around 2-00 P.M. the police party took the accused to P. S. Jalandhar (Sadar) and their turbans were removed by force. They were locked in the police lock up. Around 7-00 P.M. SSP (Rural) Sh. Dinkar Gupta came to the Police Station and started interrogating the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons were insulted and humiliated with threats that they will be shot dead. After keeping them in the police station for the whole night, the petitioner was taken to the Jail on 13-2-1994 and handed over to the judicial custody. The petitioners intimated this Court that they apprehended of being killed in fake encounter or some false cases could be planted against them. They sought the protection during the period of judicial remand. It is contended that the manner in which the judicial custody of the petitioner is being used by the police for intimidating and insulting was illegal, unconstitutional and repugnant to effective functioning of criminal justice system in a democracy. The petitioner apprehended that he may be harmed during the protective judicial custody and subjected to intimidation and humiliation.

2. At the time of motion hearing, we issued notice to the Advocate General, Punjab and directed him to ascertain the true position by filing reply before the date fixed. On 1-3-1994, the respondents were directed that they will pot remove the petitioner from the judicial custody without obtaining prior permission of this Court. The aforesaid interim order was modified on 7-3-1994 to the extent that the respondents shall be at liberty to take the petitioner out of Jail for the purposes of obtaining judicial remand from the competent court of jurisdiction and bring him back to the Jail without any further delay. Vide our order dated 15-3-1994, we directed that Inspector Jail, Jalandhar to explain their position in view of the allegations made in the petition by means of their affidavits.

3. Affidavits in reply and as per our directions have been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has been released on bail by the Designated Court. The learned counsel further wanted us to examine the matter and take appropriate action against the respondents if found guilty and further that a direction be issued for the purposes of safe custody of the accused like the petitioner who are remanded to judicial custody.

5. In the affidavit filed by Shri Dinkar Gupta, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jalandhar it is stated that Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, is not within his jurisdiction and that he had


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top