10 Feb 2021 2:18 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court last week pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Government as the SDM, Varanasi, acted "arbitrarily and illegally" in detaining two persons for breach of peace. The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed was hearing the plea of Shiv Kumar Verma & Another seeking compensation in lieu of illegal detention from 12th October 2020 to 21st...
The Allahabad High Court last week pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Government as the SDM, Varanasi, acted "arbitrarily and illegally" in detaining two persons for breach of peace.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed was hearing the plea of Shiv Kumar Verma & Another seeking compensation in lieu of illegal detention from 12th October 2020 to 21st October 2020 under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi.
After briefly noting the facts of the case, the Court observed,
"It stands admitted that the police authorities are arbitrarily and illegally submitting Challani Reports under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C."
However, after noting that State of Uttar Pradesh has taken steps to correct the mistakes and illegalities by issuing Circulars dated 30th January, 2021 and 31st January, 2021, the Court did not propose to issue any direction, except that the circulars shall be strictly implemented in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Section 107 & 111 of CrPC
Section 107 CrPC requires the Magistrate receiving the information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
The Court noted that vide order dated 8th October 2020, the respondent no.3 did not show issue show cause notice to the petitioners as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, thus, the respondent no.3 held that he committed clear breach of mandate of Section 107 CrPC.
Further, Section 111 of CrPC provides that when a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth
In this backdrop, the Court remarked,
"These necessary ingredients of Section 111 Cr.P.C. are totally absent in the order dated 8th October 2020 passed by the respondent no.3. Thus, it is evident on record that the respondent no.3 has acted arbitrarily and illegally."
Importantly, the Court noted,
"Despite submission of personal bond and other papers on 12th October 2020 by the petitioners before the respondent no.3, they were not released by the respondent no.3 and that too against its own order dated 8th October 2020 that the petitioners shall be detained till presentation of personal bond/bond."
The Court further held,
"Non release of the petitioners by the respondent no.3 even after submission of personal bond/bond and other papers, is a clear breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the respondent no.3 which resulted in illegal detention of the petitioners."
The Court also opined that SDM acted arbitrarily and not only failed to discharge his duty cast upon him under Section 107 and 111 Cr.P.C. and also committed breach of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Such type of instances need to be stopped by the State Government", remarked the Court.
To this, the Court was informed by the State Government that it shall develop a mechanism and shall also issue appropriate guidelines so as to ensure that such instances may not repeat again.
It was further stated that the State Government shall consider to grant monetary compensation to the petitioners for breach of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the joint request of the Additional Advocate General and the Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow, the Court granted four weeks time to the State Government to take appropriate action.
Case title - Shiv Kumar Verma And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. - 16386 of 2020]
Click Here To Download Order