Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Lok Adhikar Sangh vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 10 February, 1998 cites

State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Ravikant S. Patil on 19 March, 1991

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil , the Supreme Court observed that when an undertrial prisoner was handcuffed and both his arms were tied by a rope and he was taken through the streets, the undertrial prisoner was subjected to an unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of India. The prisoner was awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which was ordered by the Supreme Court to be paid by the State of Maharashtra and left to the concerned authorities to hold inquiry against the concerned police officials. In that case, the concerned police official was not given any opportunity of being heard and, therefore, a direction by the High Court to the concerned police official to make the payment was modified and the compensation was ordered to be paid by the State Government subject to its right to hold an inquiry and to take action against the concerned police officials.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 47 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980

The Apex Court has declared, directed and laid down as a rule that handcuffs shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or undertrial - and that where the police or the jail authorities have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of the custody, then also the Court has provided certain safeguards. The final directions given in the said decision are as under (at page Nos. 688-689 of GLR):
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 86 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996

30. We have also considered the concern voiced in para 32 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. . We are satisfied that there is no scope for such concern in the facts of the instant case. Nitaben and her husband are not even alleged to be hardcore criminals like extremists, terrorists, drugpeddlers, smugglers or organised criminals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 2221 - K Singh - Full Document
1