Calcutta High Court: In an application seeking the quashing of an order imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in the Sandeskhali Police Station area, lifting the ban on internet services imposed in the Sandeskhali II CD Block, a single-judge bench comprising of Jay Sengupta,* J., quashed the impugned Section 144 CrPC order due to being unlawful and lacking proper reasoning. The Court allowed the State to seek a new order specifying the exact area of disturbance. The Court directed the police to prioritize the arrest of the alleged perpetrators and instructed them to deploy adequate personnel and surveillance technology to maintain peace.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioners, residents of Sandeskhali II Development Block, filed an application seeking the quashing of an order dated 09-02-2024, which imposed restrictions under Section 144 of the CrPC in the Sandeskhali Police Station area. Additionally, they sought the lifting of the internet services ban imposed on 10-02-2024, and requested directions to the respondent authorities to ensure access to justice for the accused mentioned in the complaint dated 08-02-2024, and others. The application also seeks directions for authorities not to prevent villagers’ movement, ensure access to justice for complainants, and address allegations of high-handedness and arbitrary action by the police and civil administration.
Moot Point
-
Whether the order imposing restrictions under Section 144 of CrPC in the Sandeskhali Police Station area is legal and justified?
-
Whether the ban on internet services and restrictions on movement violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners?
-
Whether the police and civil administration’s actions were arbitrary and unconstitutional?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners alleged highhanded and arbitrary actions by the police and civil administration, depriving them of fundamental rights such as access to justice, right to livelihood, and freedom of movement. The petitioners accused three individuals of perpetrating various illegal activities in the locality without police intervention. The petitioners contended that the order imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the CrPC lacked legal basis and proper reasoning.
The State argued that the situation in the Sandeskhali area had deteriorated, necessitating the imposition of restrictions under Section 144. The State presented incidents of scuffles and arson, highlighting the need for preventive measures to maintain peace and order. The State asserted the legality and justification of the order under Section 144. The State stressed the importance of instilling confidence in the local population to encourage reporting of complaints.
Court’s Decision
The Court quashed the order promulgating restrictions under Section 144 of the CrPC, citing insufficient grounds and lack of proper reasoning. The Court emphasised that restrictions under Section 144 should be based on objective facts and proper application of mind by the authorities. The Court criticized the lack of specificity and reasoning in the promulgated order and highlighted the need for a higher threshold when covering larger territorial areas. The Court underscored the importance of addressing citizens’ grievances and ensuring their safety and access to justice. Additionally, the Court directed the State to consider promulgating a new order only for the specific areas affected by disturbances, rather than imposing blanket restrictions on the entire police station area.
The Court also urged the police authorities to prioritize apprehending the alleged perpetrators of crime and ensure the safety and rights of the villagers. Furthermore, the Court emphasised the need for accountability, directing inquiries into any alleged misconduct by police personnel and instructed them to deploy adequate personnel and surveillance technology to maintain peace. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
[Taher Ali Sheikh v. State of W.B., WPA 3869 of 2024, order dated 13-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Jay Sengupta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Tapas Maity, Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mondal, Mr. Arnab Sinha, Mr. Nazimuddin Siddiqui, Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Ms. Saloni Bhattacharyya, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya and Ms. Gulsanwara Parvin, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG and Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
