No handcuffing of accused except under magistrate’s orders, says SC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi:08.12.2019
Though Supreme Court has time and against disapproved of handcuffing of undertrial prisoners and convicts, terming it an inhuman practice, it has provided for exceptions that could have been relevant in the case of four men who were gunned down by the police in Hyderabad.
The apex court in 1995 in ‘Citizens For Democracy Vs State Of Assam’ passed a slew of directions on procedures to be followed while handcuffing a prisoner. Holding minimal freedom of movement, which even a detainee is entitled to under Article 19, cannot be cut down by application of handcuffs or other hoops, the court issued directions for police and jail authorities on handcuffing an accused. The court held that police and jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct handcuffing of any inmate of a jail or during transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back. This direction, however, may not have adequately considered the violence that sometimes breaks out in police vans among undertrials or convicts.
In a direction relevant to the Hyderabad case, the court said where police or jail authorities have a well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a prisoner is likely to jump bail or break out of custody, the prisoner be produced before a magistrate and a prayer for handcuffing be made. In Hyderabad case, since all four suspects were being taken to the crime spot, such permission might have been sought.
In other circumstances, as where a person arrested by the police, is produced before the magistrate and remand — judicial or non-judicial — is given, there shall be no handcuffing unless special orders are obtained from the magistrate. Similarly, a person arrested in the execution of an arrest warrant must not be handcuffed unless prior permission has been taken from the magistrate.
The Supreme Court has held handcuffs must be the last refuge, not the routine regimen.
Full report on www.toi.in
INHUMAN PRACTICE
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi:08.12.2019
Though Supreme Court has time and against disapproved of handcuffing of undertrial prisoners and convicts, terming it an inhuman practice, it has provided for exceptions that could have been relevant in the case of four men who were gunned down by the police in Hyderabad.
The apex court in 1995 in ‘Citizens For Democracy Vs State Of Assam’ passed a slew of directions on procedures to be followed while handcuffing a prisoner. Holding minimal freedom of movement, which even a detainee is entitled to under Article 19, cannot be cut down by application of handcuffs or other hoops, the court issued directions for police and jail authorities on handcuffing an accused. The court held that police and jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct handcuffing of any inmate of a jail or during transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back. This direction, however, may not have adequately considered the violence that sometimes breaks out in police vans among undertrials or convicts.
In a direction relevant to the Hyderabad case, the court said where police or jail authorities have a well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a prisoner is likely to jump bail or break out of custody, the prisoner be produced before a magistrate and a prayer for handcuffing be made. In Hyderabad case, since all four suspects were being taken to the crime spot, such permission might have been sought.
In other circumstances, as where a person arrested by the police, is produced before the magistrate and remand — judicial or non-judicial — is given, there shall be no handcuffing unless special orders are obtained from the magistrate. Similarly, a person arrested in the execution of an arrest warrant must not be handcuffed unless prior permission has been taken from the magistrate.
The Supreme Court has held handcuffs must be the last refuge, not the routine regimen.
Full report on www.toi.in
INHUMAN PRACTICE
No comments:
Post a Comment