"Public Parading Of Accused Impermissible, Infringes Human Rights": Calcutta High Court Orally Remarks

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday observed that the public parading of an accused by the police is "impermissible" and "infringes human rights", while hearing a plea filed by TMC leader Soukat Molla challenging his alleged public parading during the course of investigation.

Appearing for Molla, Senior Advocate Kishore Datta argued that a disturbing practice had developed whereby accused persons are publicly paraded after arrest.

"A culture has developed of parading accused. Once someone is arrested, he is produced before the Magistrate," Datta submitted.

Agreeing with the broad proposition, the Court remarked: "Yes, this is impermissible. It infringes human rights."

Datta submitted that the principal grievance in the petition was the alleged public parading of his client. He informed the Court that, besides seeking quashing of the proceedings, Molla had challenged the manner in which he was allegedly exposed before the public.

The Bench, however, questioned the maintainability of the prayer for quashing, observing that the petitioner was already in custody.

"If he is already in custody, what remains? Was he paraded publicly?" the Court asked. Responding in the affirmative, Datta reiterated that his client had indeed been publicly paraded.

Opposing the plea, the Additional Advocate General disputed the allegation. He submitted that the accused had merely been taken to the place of occurrence for the purpose of reconstruction or fixation of the scene of crime.

"What happened was that there was fixation of place of occurrence. People had gathered but we ensured no untoward incident took place. He is accused in a gang rape case. Even the NIA is investigating him," the AAG submitted.

Datta, however, questioned the State's stand, stating: "Is it their case that the NIA has done this? Then we will implead them as well."

The AAG responded that the NIA had initially taken custody of the accused, submitting: "Initially we did not take him, NIA did."

During the hearing, the Court also noted that the relevant penal provisions had not been disclosed in the report placed before it, observing: "Sections are not stated in the report."

Datta further argued that the principal accused named in the FIR had not yet been arrested and urged the Court to consider the contents of the FIR.

The Bench, however, expressed reservations regarding the relief sought, observing: "Facts are very ugly. Why pray for quashing?"

The matter has now been adjourned for hearing at a later date.