Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The facts in a nutshell absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition could be portrayed thus : The main grievance of the petitioner Sugumar @ Workshop Kumar is that whenever he is taken to the Court from the jail, he is hand-cuffed and despite his protest, the police have not discontinued the practice. The learned Magistrate concerned has not taken any steps to prevent such menace being caused to him. For which, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would furnish the list of cases which are pending as against the petitioner and it is detailed here under : 3. No doubt, the perusal of the list of 11 previous cases would show that he has been proceeded against for the offences of theft and house breaking. Those offences referred to are not involving any acts of violence perpetrated by the accused as against any individual. No doubt from the nature of the charges, the Court could also understand the desparate character of accused. But from the nature of the cases as such one cannot arrive at a conclusion that the accused is a violent type of criminal or one prone to resort to violence. Despite granting time, the police has not narrated any incident which would show that he is a violent type of criminal. 4. On the prosecution side, the Rule 831 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual has been cited and it is extracted here under for reference : “Handcuffing: (1) Under-trial prisoners shall not be normally handcuffed except: (a) prisoner involved in serious and violent offences; (b) prisoners having notorious or dangerous background; (c) violent, aggressive and refractory prisoners; and (d) prisoners who have previously escaped or are suspected of having escape risks. (2) Handcuffing of under-trial prisoners may be done at the discretion of the officer in charge of police escort. (3) No under-trial Prisoner shall be handcuffed when he is produced before the Court except with the permission of the Court”. (2) Handcuffing of under-trial prisoners may be done at the discretion of the officer in charge of police escort. (3) No under-trial Prisoner shall be handcuffed when he is produced before the Court except with the permission of the Court”. and that Rule 831 is always subject to the Supreme Court mandates as found set out in Sunil Gupta v. State of M. P. (1990) 3 SCC 119 , (1990) MLJ (Crl) 622, and the relevant portions are extracted here under for reference: “As is pointed out by KRISHNA IYER, J. speaking for himself and CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, this kind of complaint cannot be dismissed as a daily sight to be pitied and buried but to be examined from fundamental view point. In the same judgment, the following observation is made with regard to handcuffing “Those who are inured to handcuffs and bar fetters on others may ignore this grievance, but the guarantee of human dignity, which forms part of our constitutional culture, and the positive provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 spring into action when we realize that to manacle man is more than to mortify him; it is to dehumanize him and, therefore, to violate his very personhood, too often using them ask of ‘dangerousness‘ and security……” “Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict ‘irons‘ is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21. Thus we must critically examine the justification offered by the State for this mode of restraint. Surely, the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonized. To prevent the escape of a under-trial is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself, be castigated. But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the Courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture. But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the Courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture. Where then do we draw the humane line and how for do the rules are in print and praxis.” CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In Bhim Singh, M. L. A. v. State of J & K. has expressed his view that police offices should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens in the following words: (SCC p. 685, para 2) “Police offices who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stopping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. 5. Adjudging by the parameters set out by the Honourable Apex Court, there is no necessity on the part of the police to handcuff the petitioner while he was in transit between jail and the Court. Even though, no mala fide intention on the part of the police could be seen, it appears the police in order to play safe, has chosen to hand-cuff him, which they are not expected to continue in future. 6. Petition is closed with further specific condition that simply based on his previous convictions relating to theft case or on mere number of cases pending, he shall not be handcuffed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.