Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AND OTHS.
(AIR1994 SC 1349)
FACTS
(2) The Court observed that despite the presence of several Constitutional
and Statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the personal liberty and life of
a citizen, there had been several instances of torture and deaths in police
custody which was a disturbing factor.
(3) The Court severely criticised the existence of Custodial Death and
regarded it to be one of the Worst Crimes in a Civilised Society to be
governed by the Rule of Law
.
(4) A Reference was made to the case of Neelabati Bahera v. State of Orissa
(1993) in which the Supreme Court had held that prisoners and detenues are
not denuded of their Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and only such
restriction as permitted by law could be imposed on the enjoyment of the
Fundamental Rights of the prisoners and detenues.
5) The Court issued a list of 11 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and
Statutory Safeguards which were to be followed in all cases of arrest and
detention. The guidelines are as follows:
(i) The Police Personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation
of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name
tags with their designations. The Particulars of all such personnel who handle
interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(ii) That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare
a memo of the arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by
at least one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee
or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall
also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of
arrest.
(iii) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a
police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one
friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being
informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at
the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of the arrest is himself
such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(iv) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by
the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or
town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the
area concerned telegraphically within period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(v) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed
of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.
(vi) An entry must be made in the Case Diary at the place of detention regarding the
arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the
person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars if the
police official in whose custody the arrestee is.
vii) The Arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his
arrest and major and minor injuries, if present on his/her body, must be recorded at
that time. The Inspection Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police
officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest should be sent to the
Magistrate for his record.
(x) The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not
throughout the interrogation.
(xi) A Police Control Room should be provided at all district and state headquarters,
where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall
be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the
arrest and at the Police Control Room Board, it should be displayed on a conspicuous
notice board.
Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra
1983 AIR 378
FACTS
Treating the letter as a writ petition the Court issued notices to all
concerned to show cause why the writ petition should not be allowed.
HELD
Popularly known as Bhagalpur Blinding case was the first case where the question of granting
monetary compensation was considered by the Supreme Court. In this case, it was alleged
that the police had blinded certain prisoners depriving them of their right to life and liberty. The
question posed before the Court was whether a person who has been deprived of his right to
life or personal liberty by the State, could be compensated by granting monetary relief.
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary, Bihar & Ors [1995
SCC (5) 326}
The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by
pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to
ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It
is also the constitutional obligation of this Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of
the people as a sentinel on the qui-vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to
speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State which may include taking of
positive action, such as augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery, setting up
new courts, building new court houses, appointment of additional judges and other measures
calculated to ensure speedy trial.