Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man Who Made Allegations Of Atrocities By Jail Authorities; Directs State To Conduct Fact-Finding Inquiry

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court which was delivered on 27^th January 2020 wherein the bail application of the Petitioner had been dismissed without considering his medical report that stated that he had received 11 injuries while the Complainant had only received a simple injury on his thumb.

The allegations against the petitioner is that while opposing the search being conducted by the jail authorities, he along with other inmates, assaulted the jail staff on 30th March, 2019. The petitioner while refuting these allegations, alleges that he was given merciless beatings by the jail authorities.

A Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose heard the matter and noted that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly the fact that the Petitioner had suffered 11 injuries in custody, warranted for bail being granted to the Petitioner.

Further, in the context of the allegations made by the Petitioner against the jail authorities, the Court directed the State Government to conduct a fact-finding inquiry by a Senior IAS Officer of the State cadre and take appropriate action against the jail/police officers/officials who would be found guilty in such inquiry.

The Petitioner had been arrested in 2008 in connection with eight FIRs registered separately on the same facts pertaining to an incident of bomb blast in Jaipur. While he had been acquitted in eight cases, the charge-sheet in one case was yet to be filed in 12 years.

The plea submitted that the Petitioner was then framed in the present case with "an ulterior motive and malafide intention to prolong his custody in jail" which is "tantamount to suppression of inner voice of the petitioner for his basic and fundamental demand as a petitioner".

It was contended that the petitioner, along with other prisoners, were routinely being subjected to atrocities by the jail authorities. On moving an application pertaining to the same, the Petitioner and his co-accused were taken to a corner of the jail and were brutally beaten. No timely medical treatment was provided to the Petitioner and soon, a bogus and false case was filed against him and six others alleging that they attacked the jail authorities instead.

"It is submitted that both courts below has failed to appreciate the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution and the petitioner has been deprived from his personal liberty without being convicted for such a long years."

" It ought to have born in mind while considering the bail of petitioner that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson".

In light of the above, the plea sought for setting aside of the Rajasthan High Court judgement which refused to grant bail to the Petitioner.