Every Arrest & Detention Doesn't Amount To Custodial Torture: Allahabad High Court
Underscoring that every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture, the Allahabad High Court has recently observed that when custodial torture allegations are not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court ought not to entertain such kind of proceeding. A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added...
Underscoring that every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture, the Allahabad High Court has recently observed that when custodial torture allegations are not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court ought not to entertain such kind of proceeding.
A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added that while protecting the fundamental rights of those who are subjected to any torture in custody, the Court should also stand guard against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of society and enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively.
The division bench observed thus while dismissing a criminal writ petition moved by one Shah Faisal seeking compensation and action against two police officials for allegedly committing custodial torture by confining him in Police custody without any rhyme and reason.
In brief, it was the case of the petitioner that he was detained by police constables from the Partawal outpost on February 14, 2021, allegedly under false pretences and that the Sub Inspector and Police Constable threatened him and demanded ₹50,000 from his father.
The petitioner further alleged that after refusing the bribe, he was beaten in police custody and when he sought to lodge an FIR against the police officials, the local police refused to register his complaint.
It was also submitted that the petitioner subsequently filed complaints through the IGRS Portal and to the Superintendent of Police on February 19. Still, no action was taken against the officers involved.
On the other hand, the AGA appearing for the state opposed the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner had made false and exaggerated claims concerning illegal detention/torture and that there was no clear or incontrovertible evidence about custodial torture nor any medical report of any injury or disability inflicted upon the petitioner.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court, at the outset, observed that in the case of custodial torture, the proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution could be initiated only when there is substantial evidence of custodial torture.
The Court further added that it may not be prudent to accept human rights violation claims by persons routinely having criminal records for awarding compensation.
“If this is allowed then it would lead to a wrong trend and every criminal arrested or interrogated would turn up and file a petition seeking heavy compensation against the action of the police officials. Further, if such proceedings are encouraged it will open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation,” the Court remarked.
Importantly, the Court also stressed that before entertaining such kind of petitions for compensation and any action to be taken against the police officials for judicial torture, the Court has to pose to itself the following questions:
(a) whether there is violation of any human rights or violation of Article 21, which is patent and incontrovertible;
(b) whether such violation is gross and of such magnitude to shock the conscience of the court and
(c) whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was custodial torture.
The Court further opined that it is the paramount responsibility of the Court to ensure that in case there is no evidence of custodial torture to a person, except his own statement and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated, fully or in part, the Court may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 226 and in such situation appropriate remedy is to relegate the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of appropriate civil/criminal action.
Against this backdrop, when the Court examined the facts of the case, it noted that it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is an innocent person as there was an FIR lodged against him, wherein he was accused of beating one Rishikesh Bharti by a rod.
The Court also noted that for the alleged custodial torture, the petitioner had made a complaint in IGRS portal and the SSP had initiated the inquiry and after the inquiry nothing was found against the police officials and accordingly, they were discharged.
The Court also observed that there was no patent and incontrovertible violation of the petitioner's human rights, which cannot be said to be a gross violation. Thus, it cannot be said that law enforcement agencies went overboard in repressing crime in society.
The Court also noted that there was no clear or indisputable evidence about the custodial torture of the petitioner, and therefore, in the absence of any such material, the Court added, it could not accord any compensation or any other relief.
With this, the petition was dismissed.
Case title - Shah Faisal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation: