By Ashok Priyadarshi
The Haryana police without the information of local Agra police and without recording any search memo raided the house of Rahim Khan at Agra and found him to absconding. The police thus picked up his two sons and took them to Ambala, and kept them in wrongful confinement as a condition for surrender of Rahim Khan. All kinds of request and pleading were of no effect as the police personals insisted on the surrender of Rahim Khan and the condition for the release of the two minors.
A writ of habeas corpus was filed before the Supreme Court directly and notices were issued to the Home Secretary of Haryana to enquire into the complainant and file his report, and subsequently it was found that the contention of illegal detention was correct and the two minors were released.
It was found that the said minors were neither produced in any court nor the courts had such knowledge of the said illegal detention. The Supreme Court observed that no action by the judiciary had encouraged the police to adopt other majors to book the delinquent and extract evidences of their choose by putting in illegal detention and confinement in police custody of innocent children belonging to the family of the accused on condition that they would be released only on the surrender of the accused.
The Supreme Court also directed the state government to instruct the investigating agencies to desist from such crude methods and adopt scientific and fool proof methods in detecting the crime and as it is an out going process, the state should organize reorientation investigation courses for investigating officers at periodic intervals.
Cases for forced withdrawal of complaint against the police have also come into light and the Supreme Court has taken action accordingly. Seeing the increase of illegal detention, custodial deaths and reports of police high handedness the Law Commission of India in its 113th Report has recommended amendments to the Indian Evidence Act so as to provide that in the prosecution of a police officer for an alleged offence putting the onus on him to prove his innocence. On this recommendation of the Law Commission of India, the apex court has expressed its desire that the legislature should give a serious thought over the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and bring in appropriate changes so as such crimes donot go unpunished.
Similarly the State of Uttar Pradesh to compensate to one Nidhi, who was subjected to illegal detention on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape, which never was to her knowledge. While passing the order of compensation the Supreme Court observed that it was pained to note that such things happen in a country, which is still governed by the rule of law.
The Patna High Court in the case All Inmates Of After Care Home Patna vs.
The State Of Bihar & others, a public interest litigation found that some of the inmates were lodged in the said home were rather victims or lost in place of having committed certain crimes. The Court issued notice and. on receiving the report it was surprised to find that the contention was true and thus directed of the release of the said inmates. But again the situation remained the same, the High Court was informed about the same and recently it has observed that it may remind the Sub divisional Officers and the Judicial Officers that their action will amount to contempt of court.
The Constitution of India itself under Article 21 has guaranteed life and liberty tothe citizens of India and according to the Constitution this right can be suspended in accordance with the procedure laid down in law.
The arena of challenge of detention is of a wider scope as Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution gives rights to the detinue (1) that the detaining authority must as soon as possible , communicate the grounds of detention to the detinue (2) the detaining authority must give the detinue the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. If these two rights are not given to the detinue the courts can entertain the petition against such detention challenged as illegal detention and release him.
A caution has also been given by the apex court to the police officers that no person should be arrested merely on suspicion about his complicity in the crime but before making the arrest the police officer must be satisfied about the necessity and justification and reasons for such arrest. Arrest should normally be avoided except in cases of heinous crimes, as issuance of notice by the police officer to the concerned person to attend the police station and not to leave the station without permission can also be useful in general.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts have acted upon and declared private detention as illegal, where a major citizen either male or female have been but under illegal detention. Many women’s not allowed to meet or join their husbands of choice have moved the aforesaid courts and the courts have observed that the act of the father or bath the parents or guardians are illegal as the under the law no one can be put under detention for a choice marriage after becoming majors.