Back
Walking the Line: MP High Court Probes Police 'Parade' of Accused, Upholds Dignity Without Knee-Jerk Ruling
In a nuanced take on police conduct and constitutional rights, the has dismissed a writ petition alleging public humiliation by cops but ordered a preliminary inquiry to sift fact from fury. Justice Himanshu Joshi , in his order dated , balanced the petitioner's cries of violation against logistical realities faced by law enforcement, directing the to investigate claims of a "deliberate and malicious" foot march from police station to court.
From Hotel Mishap to Highway Humiliation?
The saga began on when Sangram Singh Rajoot , a 35-year-old agriculturist from Nahar Colony, Bareli (District Raisen), allegedly rammed his Bolero into the railing of Rajshree Hotel. What petitioner calls an "inadvertent" accident prompted an FIR (Crime No. 528/2018) at under —charges of abuse, hurt, house-trespass, mischief, and criminal intimidation.
Rajoot and co-accused surrendered voluntarily via family, but alleged police demanded a Rs 2 lakh bribe. The flashpoint: On , officers (respondents 3-8) purportedly marched them 2.5 km along a national highway to in full public—and media—view. Photos filed by petitioner (Annexure A/2) show the exposure. Despite representations (Annexure A/3), no action followed, leading to Writ Petition No. 29793/2018 under , seeking probe into rights infringement.
Respondents countered: Intentional crash stemmed from denied alcohol service; Rajoot has priors (Annexure R/1). Arrested , they walked 1.5 km due to no official vehicle—a statutory must for court production.
Petitioner's Plea: '' vs Cops' 'No Choice'
hammered the parade as "gross violation" of life with dignity under , preemptive shaming breaching . No priors for Rajoot, pure malice post-bribe refusal.
State's and respondents' rebutted: Disputes need verification; walk unavoidable, not parade. Habitual offender narrative painted necessity over humiliation.
Dignity's Tightrope: Law's Lens on 'Parade' vs Practicality
Justice Joshi invoked
's expanse—
"
"
—deploring public shaming sans law. Yet, mere foot transport under "unavoidable circumstances" doesn't auto-violate unless
proven. Courts decry pre-conviction punishment, but police logistics can't be ignored.
No precedents directly cited, but the ruling echoes jurisprudence on as criminal law bedrock. Photos troubling, yet insufficient sans "" for writ. Representations noted inaction, but needs misconduct.
Media reports echoed:
"Public Shaming Of Accused Violates
: MP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Alleged 'Deliberate And Malicious' Parading By Cops"
—aligning with the court's probe directive.
Key Observations
" of the Constitution not only guarantees protection of life and personal liberty but also encompasses the . Any action of the State or its instrumentalities which results in humiliation, degradation, or public shaming of an individual, without authority of law, would fall foul of the said constitutional mandate."
"Mere transportation of an accused from Police Station to Court for the purpose of production before the Magistrate, even if done on foot under unavoidable circumstances, would not constitute violation of fundamental rights, unless it is shown that such act was done deliberately to humiliate or with intention."
"The petitioner has not been able to establish, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the act of the police personnel amounted to a deliberate and malicious public parade so as to infringe his fundamental rights under ."
Probe Ordered: Fair Play Without Fireworks
The petition stands disposed , but with teeth: SP Raisen must decide representations (Annexure A/3) via preliminary enquiry by an Additional SP (unconnected), within . Consider FIR, photos, etc.; if substantiated, launch departmental/legal action , notify petitioner.
Implications? Reinforces evidence bar for claims, urges probes over instant remedies. Future cases may cite this: Logistics excuse walks but not willful shame—setting guardrails for cops, dignity shield for accused.
A measured win for accountability, sans judicial overreach.
