Judgment : P. Devadass, J. 1. This contempt action has been initiated by Gomathi, the mother of Dharmaraja, who is accused of having committed certain offences. 2. In connection with the said offences, the said Dharmaraja was arrested and brought to Tirunelveli Junction Police Station on 25.01.2012 at 3 p.m. 3. It is alleged that Dharmaraja was kept in the Police lock up with a leading chain. The photograph shows that the said Dharmaraja was inside the Police lock up with iron fetters. 4. Mr. Vijayakumar, the respondent, who was the Inspector of Police, at the material time, in the said Police Station, in his counter affidavit stated that then Sheik Ibrahim (Gr.I P.C.564) was in-charge of the lock-up and sentry, after Dharmaraja was locked up, he has left. He admits that then he was the Officer-in-Charge of the police Station. He also assumes moral responsibility for the happening inside the police lock up. Now, the said Sheik Ibrahim is no more as he was died on 21.07.2013. 5. Respondent regrets very much for what has happened on that day in the Police Station and he will be very careful in observing the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court and also instruct his subordinates accordingly. He also tenders his unconditional apology. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Honourable Supreme Court in CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY VS STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS ( 1995(3) SCC 743 ) , deprecated such inhuman practice by Police. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees life and liberty to the people. But, what the police did in this case was treating Dharmaraja an animal. This is highly condemnable. Now, the actual contemnor is no more. 7. The respondent, namely, Vijayakumar, Inspector of Police was not directly involved in chaining the accused on that day. 8. Mr.R.Alagumani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, very magnanimously submitted that the unconditional apology of the respondent may be recorded and the contempt action may be closed. 9. In the circumstances, the unconditional apology offered by Thiru.Vijayakumar, the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Junction Police Station, Tiruneleveli City, is recorded. 10. The respondent also assured this Court that either directly or indirectly no harm shall be caused, either to Dharmaraja or to his family members, because the petitioner had exposed chaining of Dharmaraja. This assurance of the respondent is also recorded. 11. 10. The respondent also assured this Court that either directly or indirectly no harm shall be caused, either to Dharmaraja or to his family members, because the petitioner had exposed chaining of Dharmaraja. This assurance of the respondent is also recorded. 11. We hasten to add that these proceedings are only for the limited purpose of examining the violation of Human Rights complained of. This has nothing to do with the prosecution or the defence, as the case may be, in the on-going trial, as against Dharmaraja. 12. In view of the foregoings, this contempt petition is closed.