Any arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar added that the Court, while protecting the fundamental rights of those subjected to torture in custody, must also be vigilant against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of society and enable the police to perform their duties fearlessly and effectively.

The division bench observed this while dismissing a criminal petition filed by one Shah Faisal, seeking damages and action against two police officials for allegedly committing torture by keeping him in police custody without any rhyme and reason.

Briefly, the petitioner’s case was that on February 14, 2021, he was detained by police officers of Partawal outpost allegedly under false pretenses and the sub-inspector and police officer threatened him and demanded ₹50,000 from his father.

The petitioner further alleged that after refusing the bribe, he was beaten up in police custody and when he wanted to file an FIR against the police officials, the local police refused to register his complaint.

It was also alleged that the petitioner had subsequently filed complaints through the IGRS portal and to the Superintendent of Police on February 19. However, no action was taken against the officers involved.

On the other hand, the AGA, appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the writ petition stating that the petitioner had made false and exaggerated claims of illegal detention/torture and that there was no clear or irrefutable evidence of custodial torture, nor any medical report of any injury. or disability inflicted on the petitioner.

In the background of these observations, the Court firstly noted that in the case of torture during custodial punishment, proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution can only be initiated if there is substantial evidence of torture during custodial punishment.

The Court added that it may not be wise to accept human rights violations claims from individuals who routinely have criminal records for the purpose of awarding damages.

“If this is allowed, it would lead to a wrong trend and every criminal who is arrested or interrogated would show up and file a petition seeking heavy damages against the action of the police officials. Furthermore, encouraging such procedures will open the floodgates to false claims, either to extract money from the state or to prevent or thwart further investigations.”, the Court noted.

Importantly, the Court also emphasized that the Court should ask itself the following questions before hearing such petitions for damages and before taking action against police officers for judicial torture:

(a) whether there has been a violation of human rights or a violation of Article 21 that is clear and irrefutable;

(b) whether such offense is gross and of such magnitude as to shock the conscience of the court, and

(c) whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that torture occurred during detention.

The Court further held that it is the primary responsibility of the Court to ensure that in case there is no evidence of torture on any person other than his own statement and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other supporting evidence, or Where there is clear evidence that the allegations are false or exaggerated in whole or in part, the Court cannot award damages as a public law remedy under Article 226, and in such a situation the appropriate remedy is to compensate the injured party by referring to traditional remedies. of appropriate civil/criminal measures.

In this backdrop, the Court, while examining the facts of the case, observed that the petitioner cannot be presumed to be an innocent person as an FIR has been lodged against him in which he is accused of hitting one Rishikesh Bharti with a stick have hit.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had filed a complaint on the IGRS portal for the alleged custodial torture and the SSP had initiated the investigation. After the investigation, nothing was found against the police officers and they were dismissed accordingly.

The Court also found that there was no clear and irrefutable violation of the petitioner’s human rights, which cannot be considered a gross violation. So, it cannot be said that law enforcement agencies have gone overboard in suppressing crime in the society.

The Court also noted that there was no clear or indisputable evidence regarding the torture of the petitioner during his custodial sentence and therefore, in the absence of such material, it could not award any compensation or other relief, the Court added.

The request was therefore rejected.

Case title – Shah Faisal vs State Of UP and four others

Quote:

Click here to read/download the order