[Jayaraj-Bennix Custodial Deaths] 'Prima-Facie Material Available Against Him', Madras HC Denies Bail To Suspended Cop [Read Order]

The Single Bench of Justice V. Bharathidasan observed that considering the gravity of the offence, and also considering the position of the petitioner being an Inspector of Police, there is a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses are likely to be tampered with, especially; some of the witnesses are police personnel working in the same Police Station.

Arguments put forth

Petitioner's Arguments - According to the Petitioner (Sathankulam suspended Police Inspector S. Sridhar), he was the Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Sathankulam Police Station, and he was not in the Police Station on the date of occurrence and he was posted at the "Corona" Bandobast duty.

The petitioner contended that he is no way connected with the occurrence and he never instigated the other accused to torture the deceased. Since the petitioner being a Station House Officer of Sathankulam Police Station, he was made as an accused.

It is further contended that now after taking up the investigation, the CBI took the petitioner into police custody and custodial interrogation was also over.

While CBCID conducting the investigation, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the CBCID, and co-operated with the investigation, he will not tamper with the witnesses and he will not cause any hindrance to the investigation.

He further submitted that earlier the petitioner suffered a severe spinal card injury and he was admitted in the Rajaji Government Medical College Hospital, Madurai, for nearly ten days, the pain is still subsisting and he needs better medical assistance, and on the medical ground also, the petitioner sought bail.

CBI's Arguments - Opposing the bail petitions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, for CBI Cases submitted that during the investigation, two women Head Constables working in the same police station, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have given statements implicating the petitioner in the crime and one Head Constable also gave a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

That apart, number of other witnesses also spoke about the presence of the petitioner in the police station at the time of occurrence. The materials available on record prima facie disclose that this petitioner repeatedly instigated his subordinates to torture the deceased.

That apart, the petitioner also fabricated the First Information Report in Crime No.312 of 2020, against the deceased subsequent to their arrest. It is further stated that now the investigation is in progress and more evidence is expected against the petitioner, and others.

The counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that it is a heinous crime of custodial death. If the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the witnesses.

Further, it was submitted that the petitioner was already an accused in another criminal case for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he is having bad antecedents.

Court's Observation

The Court noted that the materials available on record prima facie disclose that the petitioner was present in the Police Station at the time of occurrence and only at his instigation, his subordinates had beaten both the deceased and caused serious injuries to them.

Out of the witnesses examined, the Court further observed, at least eight witnesses spoke about the involvement of the petitioner in the above-said crime. Out of witnesses examined, two are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and other witnesses also spoke about the fact that the petitioner only took Jeyaraj from his shop to the Police Station and illegally detained him in the Station.

That apart, the Court was of the view that there are also materials available on record to show that only at his direction, the First Information Report was registered against the deceased after they have been taken to the Police Station.

The Court was of the opinion that all the materials prima facie establish the involvement of this petitioner in the alleged crime.

Insofar as the medical ground is concerned, the Court was of the view that except the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no other material available on record to show that the petitioner is having any ailment, which requires immediate treatment in a Specialised Hospital.

Considering the above circumstances, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The Background of the Case

An FIR was lodged against the deceased at Sathankulam Police Station on June 19th, allegedly for violating lockdown restrictions and further for misbehaving with on-duty police personnel.

The the father-son duo was remanded to Judicial custody at Sub Jail, Kovilpatti, on June 20th, 2020, and died on the following days, allegedly due to custodial torture.

Following the custodial death due to police excesses in Thoothukudi district, on 24^th June the Director-General of Tamil Nadu Police had issued fresh guidelines for arrest/remand of accused persons.

On 26^th June, The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had taken suo moto cognizance of the deaths to order a judicial probe.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the alleged custodial deaths of a father-son duo who were lodged in Sub Jail, Kovilpatti in Thoothukudi District in Tamil Nadu.

On 29^th June, the Tamil Nadu Government had decided to transfer the investigation of the Sathankulam twin custodial death case to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The move came after the Director-General of Police requested the Government to transfer the case to the CBI, in order to facilitate a free and fair investigation.

Further, on 30^th June, taking note of the antemortem injuries found on the bodies of Jayaraj and Bennix, coupled with the averments in the report of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, especially the statement of Revathy, Head Constable, Sathankulam Police Station, who spilled the beans on the delinquent police personnel, the Madras High Court had expressed the view that this "would be prima facie enough to alter the case to one under Section 302 IPC against the Sathankulam policemen who were actively involved in the investigation of the case (against the father-son duo)".

On 02^nd July, Observing that "any form of violence is a product of a sick mind", the Madras High Court had directed the State Government to continue with its Police Wellbeing Programme (aimed at the robust mental health of the police force), in collaboration with NIMHANS, Bengaluru, as per plan for a period of five years, by allocating necessary funds for it.

Further, on 21^st August a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court had directed the Registry to list a PIL seeking guidelines to curb custodial violence before a bench headed by Justice UU Lalit.

The petition has been filed by the People's Charioteer Organization urging the Supreme Court to frame guidelines to prevent custodial torture/ deaths/ rapes, in the exercise of its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution, in the interest of justice.

On Monday (14^th September), the Court informed the Counsels present that, as a number of lawyers, sought to argue in the instant issue (concerning custodial torture), the matter would be taken up as the first item on 7^th October, at 10:30 AM.

Further, Dr. Singhvi would commencing the arguments with his submissions and would guide the Court as the Amicus Curiae.

Notably, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on Tuesday (15^th September) informed the Lok Sabha that it has no plans to bring legislation on Custodial Violence.

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, G Kishan Reddy, informed the House that the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for such offences and it has no plans to bring in separate legislation.

The clarification comes in response to question solicited by DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi. He had asked if the Government was considering to bring a legislation to prevent the torture of individuals by police and public officials.

Case Details:

Case Title: S.Sridhar v.vAdditional Superintendent of Police, CBI

Case No.: CRL.O.P.(MD). Nos.9274 and 9290 of 2020

Quorum: Justice V. Bharathidasan

Appearance: Advocate G. Rajasekar (for petitioner); Vijayan Selvaraj, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI; Advocate T.Lajapathi Roy (For Intervenor).