'Will Check Custodial Violence' : Supreme Court Approves HC Direction To UP Police To Medically Examine Person Called For Investigation After Release

Update: 2024-02-21 14:31 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's direction asking the Uttar Pradesh police to conduct the medical examination of the person called in the police station after their release.“We find that the direction was issued in order to put up a check on custodial violence on the person's brought to the police station.”, the Supreme Court Bench Comprising...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's direction asking the Uttar Pradesh police to conduct the medical examination of the person called in the police station after their release.

“We find that the direction was issued in order to put up a check on custodial violence on the person's brought to the police station.”, the Supreme Court Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the plea before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the High Court's direction to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh to issue a circular directing the Station House Officers/In-charge of all Police Stations in the State to get medical examination done of any person who has been brought or called at the police station only for investigation/inquiry.

After noting that the medical examination was directed to be conducted at the time of release, the Supreme Court observed that the direction was issued to put a check on custodial violence on the person brought to the police station.

“We, therefore, do not find that any interference is warranted with regard to that.”, the court stated.

However, the State's counsel  submitted “that there cannot be an omnibus direction of this nature and that certain guidelines are required to be framed in that regard.”

“We permit the respondent-State to prepare the Standard Operating Procedure for this purpose and place the same before this Court.”, the court remarked while responding to the State's Counsel.

The matter is next listed after eight weeks.

Case Title : State U.P v. Ramadhar Kashyap (Minor) Thru.Brother Divyanshu

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 148

Click here to read the order

 


Tags:    

Similar News