All Arrest And Detentions Are Not Custodial Torture 91-8877001993

Written by:

Adv Samman Singh

Updated: 28-03-2024

Categories

General Legal issues

Common Marriage Problems

Property Issues

Bail

Marriage and Divorce

Cyber Fraud

startup

RERA

Current Affairs

corporate

statutory Compliances

Case Law

Share with your community:

The concepts of arrest, detention, and custodial care raise significant concerns around the domains of personal freedom, human rights and responsibilities of the state within the framework of criminal justice and law enforcement. Injustice or crime cannot be tolerated and therefore detentions and arrest are prerequisite and internalizing structures in the maintenance of law and order. Lawful custody and custodial torture, which is the phrase used to describe the physical or psychological mistreatment of detainees by authorities, are very different.

Why in the News?

In the case of Shah Faisal vs State of UP, in the interest of society, a bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar further stated that the Court should enable the police to carry out their duties with courage and effectiveness while simultaneously defending the fundamental rights of those who are tortured while in custody.

The division bench made this observation when rejecting a criminal writ petition filed by a man named Shah Faisal, who sought restitution and punishment against two police officers for allegedly torturing him while he was in police custody without cause or justification.

Facts of the Case

As stated by the petitioner, he was engaged in business activities in a village in Maharajganj district.
In the month of February 2021, a Sub-Inspector and constable stationed at Police Outpost Partawal approached him and demanded Rs 50,000 from his father directly threatening and coercing him to do so and if not he will face false prosecution.
The petitioner was assaulted in the police cell after demonstrating his incapacity to comply with their unlawful demand.

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

The petitioner claimed that after declining the bribe, he was assaulted while in police custody and that the local police would not file a formal complaint against the police officers.

Respondent:

In contrast, the state's AGA filed an opposition to the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had made inflated and false claims about unlawful detention and torture, that there was no unambiguous proof of torture in custody, and that there was no medical record of any harm or disability the petitioner had suffered.

Observation by the Court

The Court underlines the importance of ensuring that in circumstances where claims of custodial torture are based solely on a person's word and there is no other evidence such as a medical report or where it is clear that the claims are false or exaggerated either in whole or in part, damages as a public law remedy under Article 226 cannot be granted by the Court. Otherwise, the concerned person must pursue available remedies through civil or criminal proceedings but not through the Article.
The Court further noted that the petitioner's human rights were not violated in a way that could be considered egregious because there was no patent or undeniable breach. Therefore, it cannot be said that law enforcement organizations overreacted when it came to suppressing crime in the community.
The Court further pointed out that there was no unambiguous or unquestionable proof of the petitioner's torture while in custody, and as a result, it was unable to grant any kind of compensation or other remedies.

The plea was dismissed.

Preventing torture in custody requires a complex strategy that incorporates legal monitoring, law enforcement personnel training, reform of existing laws, and openness. Torture could be controlled in a way that injustice would be non-existing in the criminal justice system in view of the active enforcement of the anti-torture legislation, proper training of law enforcement personnel and active supervision.

Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law and current developments in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993