Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 253 (PNJ)

Nikka Singh v. State

2006-02-01

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment NIRMAL YADAV, J. 1. Vide this petition under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks issuance of suitable directions to the respondents to provide security of life, liberty and property. A further direction has been sought to register a case against respondents No.3, 4 and other police officials who may be found guilty. 2. In para No.5 of the petition, it is alleged that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.1997, the Sessions judge, Roopnagar had directed the police officials to give seven days prior notice in the event of his arrest. However, in spite of order passed by the sessions Judge, the petitioner was illegally detained on different occasions from Ist August to 5th August, 1997 In para No.7, it is alleged that father of the petitioner moved an application in the Court of SDJM, Anandpur Sahib for taking legal action against the erring police officials. On the said application show cause notice was issued to SI Arjan Dev and the learned sdjm after considering the explanation of ASI, warned him to be careful in future as per order dated 7.8.1997. It is alleged that petitioner was handcuffed by the police officials after his arrest, which is evident from the photographs, Annexure P-5 and P-6. 3. A reply by way of affidavit of Ram Singh, IPS, ASP, Anandpur Sahib, has been filed on behalf of the State. In the reply, it is categorically stated that petitioner was not detained from 1.8.1997 to 5.8.1997. However, he was arrested on 5.8.1997 by ASI Didar Singh in case registered vide FIR No.53 dated 27.7.1997 under Sections 506/307 IPC at P. S. Nangal after giving 7 days notice and was produced in the Court of SDJM, Anandpur Sahib on the same day. The Court remanded him to police custody till 7.8.1997. On 7.8.1997, he was formally arrested in connection with FIR No.46 dated 21.7.1997 under sections 406/408, P. S. Nangal. It is admitted in the reply that a show cause notice was issued to SI Arjan Dev. With regard to putting handcuffs on the petitioner, it is stated in para 10 of the reply that accused nikka Singh was brought from Police Station by ASI Didar Singh of P. S. Naya Nangal and was produced in the Court of SDJM. But it is not certain whether he was handcuffed or not. 4. With regard to putting handcuffs on the petitioner, it is stated in para 10 of the reply that accused nikka Singh was brought from Police Station by ASI Didar Singh of P. S. Naya Nangal and was produced in the Court of SDJM. But it is not certain whether he was handcuffed or not. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner was unlawfully handcuffed and no prior permission was obtained by the police authorities with regard to producing the petitioner in handcuffs from the concerned Court. The handcuffing is inhumane and violative of human rights. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a couple of judgment of the Supreme Court reported as JT 1995 (4) S. C.475 (Citizens for Democracy through its President vs. The State of Assam and ors.) and AIR 1980 Supreme court 1535 (Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration ). On the other hand, the learned State Counsel, when confronted with the photographs, Annexures P-5 and P-6, could not furnish any satisfactory explanation with regard to putting handcuffs on petitioner. 6. From a perusal of pleadings of the petitioner and reply filed on behalf of the State, it is quite evident that the petitioner was not illegally detained as there is no corroborative evidence except the plea taken in the petition. Even if he was detained in illegal custody, he, through his relations, could have approached the higher authorities with regard to such detention. The respondents have categorically denied the illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner. It is, however, stated that he was arrested on 5.8.1997 in case FIR no.53 dated 27.7.1997 under Sections 506/307 IPC, P. S. Nangal. Since the sdjm, Anandpur Sahib, after considering the explanation of SI Arjan Dev, has already warned him to be careful in future, therefore, no interference is required so far as the allegation of the petitioner with regard to his arrest without giving seven days prior notice. 7. With regard to putting handcuffs on prisoners, the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens for Democracy (Supra) has expressed the view that prisoners should be given freedom from handcuffs except in the circumstances where the police of jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that this particular prisoner is likely to escape. 7. With regard to putting handcuffs on prisoners, the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens for Democracy (Supra) has expressed the view that prisoners should be given freedom from handcuffs except in the circumstances where the police of jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that this particular prisoner is likely to escape. In the present case, admittedly, no such direction was issued by the judicial Officer before whom the petitioner was produced. The reply submitted by the respondents in this regard, to the effect that it is not certain whether he was handcuffed or not, is vague and rather appears to be false in view of photographs, Annexure P-5 and P-6 showing the petitioner in handcuffs. The aforesaid photographs have been duly identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner under his signatures. 8. Since the police officer/official had put handcuffs on the petitioner without prior permission of the Judicial Officer before whom he was to be produced, which is against the mandate of law settled by the Apex Court in its decisions rendered in the cases of Citizens for Democracy and Prem shanker Shukla (supra), and at the same time, having regard to the fact that the incident relates to the year 1997, I deem it appropriate to issue warning to the concerned police officers/officials that in future the directions issued by the Apex Court be obeyed and complied with meticulously, otherwise, they would be liable to be punished for contempt of Court. Disposed of accordingly.