Court Orders Review and Adherence to Constitutional Safeguards in Arrest and Custodial Treatment
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has expressed grave concerns over police misconduct involving allegations of illegal arrest, custodial torture, and public humiliation of petitioners, Sujeet Sao and his family, by the police personnel of Police Station Smriti Nagar. The case highlights critical lapses in adherence to constitutional rights and judicial guidelines, emphasizing the need for accountability and reform in police conduct.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, heard the writ petition filed by Sujeet Sao and others against the State of Chhattisgarh and several police officials. The petitioners alleged illegal arrest, custodial torture, and public humiliation following a minor altercation at a cinema hall, which was escalated by police intervention. The petitioners contended that police officials acted with malafide intent, violating fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to ensure strict adherence to constitutional provisions and judicial guidelines during arrest and custodial treatment. The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards outlined in landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
The court's ruling comes in the wake of serious allegations against police personnel, including unlawful arrest, failure to observe statutory and judicial safeguards, and public humiliation of the petitioners. The Director General of Police, in his affidavit, denied allegations of custodial torture, stating that police actions were lawful and necessitated by the petitioners' conduct. However, the court found discrepancies in procedural adherence and expressed strong disapproval of the police's handling of the situation.
In its judgment, the court directed the State Government and the Police Department to take immediate corrective measures and ensure compliance with arrest, remand, and medical examination procedures. The court stressed that any deviation from these procedures would attract strict departmental consequences.
The court also ordered the examination of the conduct of the Station House Officer, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, and directed that necessary corrective and disciplinary measures be undertaken. Furthermore, the court mandated the issuance of standing instructions to all police units, reiterating the importance of constitutional and statutory safeguards in arrest and custodial treatment.
The court's directives aim to reinforce the rule of law and uphold citizens' fundamental rights, urging police authorities to exercise their powers with accountability, restraint, and adherence to legal and constitutional mandates. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring justice in the face of alleged police excesses.
Bottom Line:
Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to arrest, remand, and custodial treatment must be strictly adhered to by police officials to prevent violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
Sujeet Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842866
