Custodial Violence Infringes Not Only Right To Life But Also Basic Human Rights- Jharkhand HC Directs NCB To Compensate Man Allegedly Implicated In False Drug Case
The Jharkhand High Court has in a false drug case directed the Narcotics Control Bureau to compensate a man for Rs. 8 lakhs for allegedly implicating him in the case. While directing so, the Court has observed that the police atrocity or custodial violence infringes not only the right to life but also basic human rights and strikes a blow at the rule of law.
The Court quashed an FIR and related legal proceedings against the petitioner, who was falsely implicated in a drug-related case. The petitioner had been in custody for several years. The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR and NDPS Special Case under sections 8/18(b) of the NDPS Act, along with the order taking cognizance of the case.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, "The police atrocity or custodial violence infringes not only right to life but also basic human rights and strikes a blow at rule of law. Tortures involves not only physical suffering, but also mental agony which is a naked violation of human dignity and destructive of human personality. Third-degree methods of interrogation and investigation cannot be permitted..."
The Court further held, “it is an admitted position that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and case for withdrawal has also been filed under section 321 of the Cr.P.C. by none other than the N.C.B. which was rejected that is the subject matter in criminal revision before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. N.C.B. Crime No.04/2015 (02-2015/16), corresponding to NDPS Special Case No.17/2015(N), pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-I, Ranchi including the impugned order dated 01.04.2016 are quashed.”
The complaint alleged that the petitioner was forcefully taken by individuals claiming to be NCB officials. They also took a vehicle and personal belongings from another individual, to falsely implicate them in a drug-related offense. The petitioner was then taken to Ranchi, where he was demanded to pay Rs. 10 lakhs for his release.
Advocate Shailesh Poddar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anil Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner argued that he and the other individual were falsely implicated, and he has been in jail custody despite no evidence against him. The NCB has filed multiple withdrawal petitions under Section 321 Cr.P.C., all of which were rejected. The petitioner also requested his release and compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs.
Both the petitioner's counsel and the Assistant Solicitor General representing the NCB acknowledged that the petitioner had been falsely implicated.
The Court noted that the petitioner has been unjustly imprisoned for several years due to false allegations against him, and this violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was mentioned that the NCB has initiated actions against its own officials responsible for the false case. The Court said that in these circumstances it can’t be a mute spectator. The Court added, “Thus, it is an admitted case that the petitioner has been falsely made an accused and in that view of the matter, Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and the liberty of the petitioner has been snatched by none other than the officials of the N.C.B. Time and again, the Constitutional Courts have made emphasis upon the protection of the liberty of a particular person.”
The Court cited the case of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that individuals are entitled to compensation for illegal detention. The Court said, “A person has spent his prime time in jail for the act of the erring officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and if the liberty is taken away, the petitioner is entitled for compensation”
The Court stated that compensation is a remedy available in public law for the violation of fundamental rights. The Court reiterated the importance of transparency and accountability in cases of arrest or detention.
The Court referenced the guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal regarding arrest and detention procedures. The Court stated, “the way in which the petitioner has been kept in illegal confinement in view of the petition filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) clearly suggest that it is a proved case of atrocity and if such a case is there, this case is not being an exception in view of the guidelines made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Basu(supra).”
The Court emphasized the duty to prevent custodial torture, assault, and death, and to protect the rights and dignity of the arrestee. Reference was made to the case of Arnav Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, highlighting the court's duty to address cases of illegal confinement.
“The alarming increase in custodial torture, assault and death in police custody and if there is direct apprehension of such case, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if such facts are brought to the knowledge of the Court, the Court is duty bound to pass appropriate order and even in illegal confinement, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked.” the Court added.
The Court concluded that the petitioner had been unjustly detained and ordered the quashing of all related criminal proceedings. The petitioner was directed to be released immediately. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to the petitioner, to be paid by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) within eight weeks.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Manga Singh v. Union Of India
Click here to read/download Judgment