9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was married to Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur, daughter of the 5th respondent, on 19-9-1993 in Jaipur. After the marriage, Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur came to Hyderabad and stayed with her husband and in-laws. She also got employment in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. At that time, her husband Dr. Amrit Pal Singh was in service at Kanpur and thereafter at Lucknow, while the petitioner and her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra were staying in Visakhapatnam. 4. Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur went with her husband to Lucknow some time in the month of February, 1994 and after staying there for about a. month she went to Jaipur on 28-3-1994 and staying there with her father, that is, respondent No. 5 since then. 5. On 25-10-1994, the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh along with Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and two constables as also the 5th respondent, who had come in a van from Jaipur to Hyderabad, visited the house of the petitioner at about 6.30 a.m., and took her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. The petitioner followed them. Thereafter, Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was taken to the Bowanpalli Police Station, Hyderabad. On the same day at 10.00 a.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Ranbir Singh. But he was not available in his residence and, therefore, they are taking her and her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to be detained till Mr. Ranbir Singh is arrested. She and her husband were taken to Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad and were kept in illegal custody. On her request, she was permitted to bring the wearnings of her husband because he was in night dress till then. Later, in the evening, she had a talk on telephone with the 2nd respondent the Circle Inspector of Police of Jaipur, i.e., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh as also with her husband, who was in his custody. Her husband informed her on telephone that these persons were torturing him. On enquiry she came to know that the 2nd and 5th respondents had stayed in Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. She lodged a criminal complaint with Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad that her husband had been kidnapped. Her husband was arrested without warrant of arrest by the 2nd respondent at the instigation of the 5th respondent. Both these persons abused her and her husband in vulgar language and the 2nd respondent had manhandled him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that her husba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttempt was made to arrest Mr. Ranbir Singh, but as his house was found locked, they came back to Bowanpalli Police Station, at 12.30 p.m. At about 12.45 p.m. the 2nd respondent and his party with the husband of the petitioner left Hyderabad for Jaipur and they stayed for lunch at 2.15 p.m., after covering a distance of 50 to 60 kms. At the request of Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra, he was permitted to talk to his wife at about 3.00 p.m. to find out whether Mr. Ranbir Singh had come back to his residence. He informed the 2nd respondent that Mr. Ranbir Singh and others had gone to Bidar and were likely to return by 9.00 p.m. Therefore, the 2nd respondent decided to stay there upto that time. At about 8.00 p.m., and again at 9.30 p.m., Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra telephoned to his wife and, after talking to her, told the 2nd respondent that Mr. Ranbir Singh and has family had returned to their residence. The petitioner was requested to tell Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family members that the complainant, that is the 5th respondent, would talk to Mr. Ranbir Singh on telephone so that he could identify them. But till 11.00 p.m. there was no response on their telephone. Again Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra telephoned to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as illegally detained with ulterior motive. The petitioner was also harassed and humiliated. Her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was manhandled and tortured and thus the petitioner is entitled to damages by way of compensation. 14. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the allegation of the petitioner is false that the petitioner and/or husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was/were humiliated, tortured or manhandled. It is also denied that he was arrested in the early morning of 25-10-1994 and was not produced before the Magistrate in the permissible time, according to law, and therefore, no compensation is required to be paid to the petitioner. 15. In the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983CriLJ1644 , the apex Court has observed that when grave injustice is perpetrated upon the petitioner, the same can be rectified by compensating him in the interest of justice, particularly, when some palliative for the unlawful acts of the instrumentalities are established. Similarly, in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1986CriLJ192 , it is held that non-production of the detenu before the Court made the respondent liable to pay compensation. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hours besides the time taken for journey. 21. In the case of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry, AIR1955All138 , a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, equivalent to Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not empower a police officer to keep an arrested person in custody a minute longer than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it does not give him an absolute right to keep a person in custody till twenty-four hours. It has further held that a police officer is not justified in detaining a person for one single hour except upon some reasonable ground justified by the circumstances of the case and under no circumstances can the period of such detention exceed twenty-four hours, without a special order of a Magistrate. In this case, the liability of admission in jail was not found a justifying reason for delay. This case has been referred to in the case of Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration AIR 1964 Manipur 39 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 307) . A learned single Judge of the Manipur High Court has observed that : The Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise detention by the police for 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined without producing him before a Magistrate under the colourable prevention that no actual arrest is made and the burden of proving the reasonable ground is on the arrester that the time occupied in the journey was reasonable with reference to the distance traversed as also other circumstances and in case of continuation of detention for twenty-four hours, particularly, when the police officer has reason to believe that the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, he must produce the accused forthwith before the Magistrate and cannot wait for twenty-four hours. 23. It is not disputed before us that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was taken from his residence by the 2nd respondent and his staff at about 6.30 to the Deccan Continental Hotel and from there to the police station where the arrest memo had been prepared at 10.00 a.m. Thus he was in continuous custody of the 2nd respondent from 6.30 a.m., till he was ultimately produced before the competent Magistrate at Jaipur on 28-10-1994. He was not produced before any Judicial Magistrate in Hyderabad though the 2nd respondent left with him and his staff at 12.45 p.m. for Jaipur. It has been mentioned in para 3 of the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd her husband on telephone, does not at all appear to be justified and reasonable. The 2nd respondent had tried to locate Mr. Ranbir Singh immediately on reaching Hyderabad upto the time they left Hyderabad. He had taken Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra with him in spite of his protests as also of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it was not expected of him and the petitioner to tell the where-abouts of Mr. Ranbir Singh - their near relation only to be arrested and humiliated. It is not the case of these respondents that the petitioner and Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra were given a promise that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra shall be released in case they get Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family arrested. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that for such an inducement given the 2nd respondent expected for a favourable information from them. Eve if it is assumed that the intention for nine hours stay was to arrest Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family, it cannot be accepted to be a reasonable cause to detain Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra during journey because grounds for judging the time occupied in journey is with reference to the distance to be traversed and other circumstances such as mechanical failure of the vehicle in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trate who expressing surprise rejected the prayer for further police remand. The 2nd respondent stayed with the 5th respondent in the Deccan Continental Hotel in Hyderabad. They had come from Jaipur in a mini van. The Deccan Continental Hotel is a costly hotel in. Hyderabad. The counter is silent as to who bore the expenses of stay for two days in Deccan Continental Hotel. Similarly, the counter is silent as to the expenses incurred in coming and going from Jaipur in the mini van. The 2nd respondent appears to be very vigilent in performing his duty by coming right from Jaipure to Hyderabad by road and in making all efforts in locating the house of and searching Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family members, and staying at a distance of about 50 to 60 kms. for about nine hours in the hope of arresting them, then going back to Jaipur and obtaining police remand for one day in the night intervening 27/28-10-1994. But the aforementioned circumstances do not indicate that he acted innocently. 28. True, that in the order sheet recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Hinganghat it is mentioned that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra did not complain against the 2nd respondent, but that statement does not app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghat and producing before a Magistrate having no jurisdiction in mid night on 27-10-1994 and that too with a request for police remand. Even if the 2nd respondent thought the investigation could not be completed within twenty-four hours from the time of arrest of Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra, he should have produced him forthwith before a Magistrate in Hyderabad without waiting for twenty-four hours, which is the time prescribed under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the outer most limit beyond which a person cannot be detained in police custody. The forcibly taking away and illegal detention of Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra from 6.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and not producing him before the Magistrate on the same day, in the above mentioned circumstances, is in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is a case of not only the highlanders of the 2nd respondent but also an act of committing mental and psychological torture to the petitioner and her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra. It is fit case in which an order for payment in the nature of compensation can be passed, consequently, upon the deprivation of a fundamental right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
