Amit Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash Rakesh Singh And Ors

The instant contempt petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the respondents in terms of the judgment passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539 of 1986 along with another writ petition (Criminal) No. 592 of 1987 decided on 18th December, 1986 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India read with Articles 226, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India for punishing the respondents for showing disobedience and disrespect to the judgment above referred while arresting and making investigation from the petitioner, but without adhering to the requirements provided in the judgment dated 18th December, 1996 above referred.

In the instant contempt petition, it has been stated that when the respondents entered the residential house of the petitioner assaulted and injured the inmates, they were not bearing their name plates on their chests or designations and there was no lady Constable accompanying respondents' party. There was no search warrant or arrest warrant with the respondent while they forcibly entered the house of petitioner on 02nd March, 2012. The respondent headed by the respondent No.1 neither prepared a memo of arrest nor got it attested either from the family members of the petitioner and further, did not get the memo countersigned from the petitioner with date and time of taking into custody of the petitioner. The respondents neither informed any friend or person having interest in the welfare of the petitioner nor the place of arrest of the petitioner was informed by the respondents to any one from the side of the petitioner. The respondents did not make aware of about the right of the petitioner to have someone informed about his detention by the police.

It is stated in the instant contempt petition that the detention of the petitioner has not been diarized regarding arrest by showing name of the person/friend of the petitioner so informed as well as the mention of the name and the particulars of the police officials, who dragged and detained the petitioner into custody in utter disregard to the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner. A request was made to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by the petitioner to get him treated from the doctor, as he had sustained multiple injuries all over his body due to brutal beating and dragging by the respondents and their men on 02nd March, 2012, but they did not provide treatment from the doctor. No inspection memo was ever prepared and was got signed from the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and no such copy was ever prepared by the respondents and thereafter, provided to the petitioner since no such medical examination was ever made on the day of taking the petitioner into custody.

It is further stated in the instant contempt petition that the mandate of 48 hourly medical checkup too was not adhered to with respect to the petitioner during the custody of the petitioner w.e.f. 02nd March, 2012 to 15th March, 2012 and the empanelled doctor/doctors were never made available for the petitioner by the respondents at all. Only on two occasions during 13 days of the detention of the petitioner, the petitioner was taken to the Hospital, but was not got examined medically, particularly, the injuries caused to the petitioner during the process of dragging, the cigarette burns given to the petitioner etc. during the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner was not allowed even to meet the members of his family during the period of custody, what to talk of providing a lawyer or giving a chance to meet his lawyer during the period of his custody. The relevant photographs showing injuries scars due to the torture of the police during custody of the police at the hand of the respondents are annexed as Annexure-C collectively. The petitioner had been approaching different Government Medical Officers including that of Government Sub-District Hospital Akhnoor as well as the Superintendent of Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu since his release on bail, but none of them was ready to examine him medically, so that the truth with respect to the torture of police may come out. On 02nd March, 2012, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as well as other police officials accompanying them had also taken away a golden chain of the petitioner, which he was wearing on 02nd March, 2012 when the police officials dragged him, weighing 20 grams as well as cash amount of Rs. 7025/- collected for the treatment of his mother, but the same have not been reflected by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 anywhere, as they have taken away the same.

Compliance report/Statement of facts has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7, from perusal whereof, it is evident that the petitioner has been booked in a case FIR No. 54/2012 for commission of offences under Sections 454/380 RPC, registered at Police Station Akhnoor on 29th February, 2012. The investigation of the said case was entrusted to Probationer Sub-Inspector, namely, Rakesh Singh (respondent No. 1 herein). The Investigating Officer prepared the Site Plan, seized iron rod and recorded the statement of the complainant, namely, Anita Devi also. At the time of theft, the son of the said Anita Devi, namely, Parveen Singh, age 10 years, was at home, so he could not identify the culprit. When the photograph of the known criminals of the area was shown to the said Parveen Singh, he identified the petitioner as culprit. Accordingly, on 02nd March, 2012, the Investigating Officer along with ASI-Daljeet Singh (respondent No. 2 herein), HC-Fateh Chand, Constable-Parvaiz Ahmed, Constable-Kuldeep Raj and SPO-Surinder Singh departed the Police Station, Akhnoor vide DD No.13 dated 02nd March, 2012 in connection with investigation of the case. They returned vide DD No. 13 dated 02nd March, 2012 and reported that one suspect, namely, Amit Sharma @ Don S/o Ram Dayal R/o Ward No. 9, Akhnoor has been arrested from Ward No. 9, Akhnoor under Section 54 Cr.P.C. The petitioner made a disclosure statement before the police and on his disclosure statement, the police recovered all the stolen items of gold, i.e., two chains, two bangles, two rings (gents) and two rings (ladies) except cash of Rs. 1700/-. In this way, the petitioner was found involved in the said FIR.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole consideration of the matter and I have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, "D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 416. Except bald aversion, there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been violated. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.