Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sd3 Rubel Sk vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 February, 2019
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
z 1
362. 22.02. W.P. 23081(W) of 2018
M.L. 2019
Sd3 Rubel Sk.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mrs. Rima Das
Mr. S. Das Mahpatra
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel
Mr. Tarak Karan
...for the State
The petitioner raises serious issues with regard to
custodial death. The son is concerned about the death of
his father in custody.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that, the father of the petitioner was taken into
custody on October 17, 2017. The father of the petitioner
was sought to be brought from Mursidabad to Kolkata.
The petitioner came to learn on November 9, 2017 that,
his father expired. Thereafter the petitioner wanted to
know about the cause of death. He was not given
satisfactory answer.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws
the attention of the Court to the report under Section 174
of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submits that, the
report cannot be relied upon. It was prepared by an
authority who is not the designated authority. Moreover,
according to him the less is said about the contents of the
report is better.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
State submits that, the deceased was sought to be
brought to Kolkata from Mursidabad for health reasons.
When the deceased arrived at Alipore Correctional Home,
he complained of illness whereupon he was first admitted
z 2
to the M.R. Bangur Hospital and thereafter was taken to
Calcutta National Medical College on the next day. The
deceased expired on November 9, 2017. The magisterial
enquiry was made and a videograph was prepared with
regard thereto.
It appears that, the National Human Rights
Commission by a writing dated January 3, 2001 required
that, the post mortem report along with the videograph
and the magisterial enquiry report must be sent to it
within two months from the incident.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
State submits that, the direction of the National Human
Rights Commission dated January 3, 2001 should be read
in the context of violent of custodial death. The present
one is not one of the same.
Be that as it may, at the present moment, it would
be appropriate to add National Human Rights
Commission as a party respondent in the present writ
petition.
Learned advocate-on-record in the writ petition is at liberty to make necessary amendments in the cause title of the writ petition accordingly. The writ petitioner will serve a copy of the amended writ petition upon the added respondent and will file affidavit-of-service to such effect on the next date of hearing.
List the writ petition on March 8, 2019 under the same heading for further consideration.
Urgent certified Website copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
z 3 (Debangsu Basak, J.)