"Dangerous Accused Must Be Handcuffed": SC Dismisses Plea Against Extra-Judicial Killings And Handcuffing Of Persons

"Where are you going with this? How can you prevent extra-judicial killing? they shouldn't happen but how will you stop them?", asked CJ S. A. Bobde at the outset of Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, for the petitioner.

"In 2014, Your Lordships had said there should be inquiry after an extra-judicial killing...when an accused is before the Magistrate for remand, he knows the apprehensions of himself and his advocate, which he must make known to the magistrate. The magistrate must record the same...in 1995, this court said that handcuffing or tying by a rope should not be forced on a prisoner as a general rule, but only by way of exception", advanced Mr. Sharma, indicating the decision in Citizens For Democracy vs State Of Assam.

"But some accused are dangerous! They must be hand-cuffed!", said the CJ.

"Yes, they must be! The accused is the best person to make known such apprehensions! But the magistrate must record this apprehension of the person! The magistrate should ask 'Do you want to be handcuffed?", replied the senior advocate.

"No, No, No, Which accused would say 'yes'? If the accused intends to assault the police, he is bound to say 'no'! He would be a foolish man to say 'Handcuff me'! People kill the police, people kill the jail warden also!", remarked the CJ.

"Yes. But they must be dealt with in accordance with the law", argued the counsel.

"Sorry, we won't entertain this", said the CJ, dismissing the plea