+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.
You are reading an older article which was published on
Jun 29, 2022

Karnataka HC: Police Can't Handcuff Accused Without Recording a Reason

The court's order also said that the police must seek prior permission of the court to produce an undertrial in handcuffs, failing which the officers who did so will be liable to face action.
Karnataka high court. Photo: PTI/File

New Delhi: The Karnataka high court has recently ruled that no individuals, whether they be an accused in a case, an undertrial prisoner or a convict, shall be handcuffed unless the reason for doing so is detailed in the case diary.

The ruling was made while the Dharwad bench of the court was hearing a petition by one Suprit Ishwar Divate, a resident of Chikkodi in Karnataka’s Belgaum district, who was handcuffed by the police in a cheque bounce case.

Divate submitted to the court that in November, 2019, he was arrested by police personnel in Ankali in the same district and was subsequently handcuffed and paraded around town. He further alleged that he was taken on a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus to the Chikkodi police station without being produced before a court, according to a Deccan Herald report.

A law student, Divate submitted a CD to the court which contained a video of the incident and sought compensation to the tune of Rs 25 lakh for loss of reputation, illegal detention and illegal handcuffing.

The bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that since the police was executing a non-bailable warrant, the arrest was proper. However, it took objection to the handcuffing of Divate and as such, directed the state government to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation to the petitioner with liberty to recover the same amount from the offending officer.

In his order, Justice Govindaraj noted that whenever an accused is presented before a court, it is the court’s responsibility to enquire whether the accused was handcuffed. If they were, the court would have to “ascertain the reasons for such handcuffing and decide on the validity”.

“As far as possible, permission to handcuff an undertrial prisoner would have to be taken prior to the production of the undertrial prisoner before the court and obtain an order for handcuffing from the said court. If no such permission is applied for and the undertrial prisoner were to be handcuffed, the concerned police officer would be taking a risk of such handcuffing being declared illegal and action being taken against them,” the Herald quoted the court order as saying.

Also read: How and Why Iron Fetters and Handcuffs on Detainees Violate Human Rights

While the court order mandating police personnel to seek the prior permission of the court before handcuffing accused individuals is a step in the right direction, there have been instances in the recent past when accused have been produced in handcuffs even after explicit instructions not to do so had been issued by the court.

In February this year, student activist and JNU scholar Umar Khalid was produced before the Karkardooma court in Delhi in handcuffs, going against two court orders – one from January when the chief metropolitan magistrate had ordered that Khalid be produced without “handcuffs or fetters”; and another from an additional sessions judge dismissing a plea by the Delhi police to produce Khalid in handcuffs.

In the present case, the court also directed trial courts to try, as far as possible, to avoid having undertrial prisoners appear before the court physically and allow them to appear through video conferencing.

Further, the court directed the Karnataka director-general of police (DGP) and inspector-general of police (IGP) to provide body cameras to all officers so that the manner in which the arrest of accused individuals can be recorded.

These cameras are required to have active microphones too, so that conversations at the time of arrest can be recorded, and these audio and video records will be required to be maintained for at least one year from the date of recording.

This part of the order echoes a recent judgement from the Calcutta high court which mandated videography in all cases related to the seizure of narcotics. In case the officers are unable to do so for any reason beyond their control, the reasons must be recorded in the investigation records, such as the seizure list, the court had said.

 

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter