Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ranu Lalu Parsa Ut No. 14 And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 21 November, 2019

Author: M.G.Giratkar

Bench: Z.A.Haq, M.G.Giratkar

 Judgment                                 1                                 wp253.12.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.



                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 253 OF 2012


 1)     Ranu Lalu Parsa, Aged Major,

 2)     Vinod Buccha Pada,

 3)     Madi Tukka Pungati,

 4)     Madi Ganda Lekami,

        All at Present Barrack No.8, Badi Gol,
        Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur.

                                                                 .... PETITIONERS.

                                   // VERSUS //


 1.       Secretary, Home Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

 2.       Director General of Police,
          Maharashtra State Police
          Head Quarters, in front of
          Regal Cinema, Mumbai-32.

 3.       Superintendent of Police,
          Police Head Quarter,
          Gadchiroli.
                                                   .... RESPONDENTS.
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Apurva De, Advocate Amicus Curiae
 Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P. P. for Respondents.
 ___________________________________________________________________

                         CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                         DATED : NOVEMBER 21 2019.

 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : M.G.Giratkar, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 11:41:49 :::
  Judgment                                       2                                wp253.12.odt




 1.                Heard.



2. The present writ petition is registered on the letter received from the under-trial prisoner. This Court appointed Advocate Shri Apurva De to represent the petitioners. He has prepared the petition.

3. The summary of the petition can be stated as under:

That the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were arrested by the Police Station, Chakrighat. On 27/01/2012 they were taken from Central Jail, Nagpur to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aheri, District : Gadchiroli. As per the contention of the petitioner they were handcuffed. While returning from the Court at Aheri the Police Authorities stopped the vehicle at Bramhapuri and the Police Party consumed liquor. The driver of the vehicle had driven rashly and negligently and had dashed the said vehicle to a tipper
-truck. The driver (police) and one under trial prisoner Suklu Karva Gota died on the spot. One of the police constables, who sustained injuries, lodged report in respect of the accident and death of the under-trial prisoner. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were handcuffed, hence, they are entitled for compensation.

4. The respondents have filed reply. They have stated in the reply that post-mortem of the dead body of the driver of the vehicle was ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 11:41:49 ::: Judgment 3 wp253.12.odt conducted. During post-mortem alcohol was not found. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased driver (police) was under the influence of liquor. It is submitted that all the four petitioners and other under-trial prisoners were naxalites and to protect the police party they were handcuffed.

5. Heard Shri Apurva De, Advocate for the petitioners. He has pointed out the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Vs. Delhi Admn., reported in AIR 1980 SC 1535 and submitted that the respondents have committed breach of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents had put handcuffs to all the petitioners and therefore, they are entitled for compensation.

6. Shri Doifode, learned A.P.P. has submitted that all the petitioners, under-trial prisoners were harden naxalites and therefore, handcuffing was necessary. The statement recorded by the police, filed on record, show that the deceased under-trial and petitioners were naxalite and therefore, handcuffs were necessary to protect the police and others from them. Therefore, it cannot be said that handcuffing the petitioners was illegal. Reasonable restrictions can be put to produce the prisoners from jail to Court. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition.

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 11:41:49 :::

Judgment 4 wp253.12.odt Fees of Shri Apurva De, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioners be quantified as per the Rules.

                             (M.G.GIRATKAR, J)                      (Z.A.HAQ, J)


RRaut..




          ::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 11:41:49 :::