22 Aug 2023 7:36 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has sought action against police personnel who allegedly subjected a boy to custodial violence due to a minor issue of roadside parking. The bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also flagged concerns regarding the non-working of CCTV cameras in Police Stations in the capital city of the State and directed the...
The Allahabad High Court has sought action against police personnel who allegedly subjected a boy to custodial violence due to a minor issue of roadside parking.
The bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also flagged concerns regarding the non-working of CCTV cameras in Police Stations in the capital city of the State and directed the police department to take corrective measures in this regard.
The Court passed this order while dealing with a writ plea filed by the victim wherein his father alleged that the victim was beaten up severely by the police personnel after it was found that his two-wheeler was parked on the road, and he was obstructing the traffic. In his plea, actions were sought against the erring police personnel.
On the earlier date of the hearing, looking at the injuries received by the victim, the Court had directed the medical examination of the victim.
Now, on August 17, the Court received the medical report which stated that the cause of injury was physical assault.
Before the Court, the Additional Commissioner of Police submitted his opinion that there was an altercation between the Police personnel and the victim (Rajat Bajpai) with regard to the parking of his motorcycle which led to Police personnel forcibly taking Rajat Bajpai in their vehicle to the Police Station concerned.
It was also opined that because of the petitioner sitting on Dharna on the road and being forcibly taken in the Police vehicle, the victim received injuries on his legs due to friction/ skirmish.
However, the Court was not satisfied with the opinion expressed by the Additional Commissioner of Police as it noted that medical reports clearly showed that injuries were caused to the petitioner by a hard and blunt object and were a result of physical assault.
The Court categorically said that it was not convinced with the opinion of the ACP that the petitioner's injuries occurred due to friction on the road when the Police personnel tried to pick up the petitioner and put him in the police vehicle.
“Friction cannot cause contusion as has been reported by the two Medical Officers concerned,” the Court said.
The Court further noted that 2 constables Vishal Singh and Rahul could not explain why they had taken out the petitioner for five minutes to some other place away from the lock-up.
“The Additional Commissioner of Police has not expressed any opinion at all about the possibility of these two Constables beating up the petitioner. He has only stated that it was not proper for them to have taken out the petitioner,” the Court remarked.
With regard to the C.C.T.V. footage of the concerned Police Station, the Court noted that the Enquiry Officer had found that the bullet cameras had not been working in the Police Station.
Being concerned with the non-working of CCTV cameras in police stations, the bench observed thus:
“We have been informed that Director General of Police has issued orders that all the Police Stations be covered by C.C.T.V cameras, but this is the second incident in the capital city of the State of U.P. where the Police has informed this Court that C.C.T.V cameras were not working at the relevant point of time and have not been working for quite some time. It is a matter of great concern and this kind of report of Police cannot be appreciated at all.”
Further, noting that the Constables have not been arrayed as respondents in person in this petition, therefore, the Court directed for their impleadment and listed the matter on September 20 for a detailed counter affidavit to be filed by the State respondents regarding action taken against police personnel and working of CCTVs in police stations.
Counsel for Petitioner: P.R.S. Bajpai, Abhishek Yadav, Anand Mani Tripathi, Harsh Tripathi, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ravindra Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.
Case title - Rajat Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5811 of 2023]
Click Here To Read/Download Order