Patna High Court: In a case alleging illegal arrest and custodial death of a woman, the application seeking anticipatory bail by the police officials was rejected by Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, J. for the serious nature of the allegations.
Background:
The prosecution alleged that the police officials had arrested the complainant and his mother, without a warrant, by climbing over the outer walls and the roof of the their house and entering through the courtyard. The prosecution further contended that the deceased was subjected to third degree torture in police custody for asserting her rights that she could not be detained for more than 24 hours and demanding to see the station diary.
Noticeably, the deceased was taken in illegal custody on 08-09-2021 and information of her demise was received by the villagers on 12-09-2021 while her family was not informed of her death.
Consequently, a complaint was filed against the police officials and summons were issued to all five accused persons by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class. The petitioners having failed to get the relief of pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court, moved to the present Court.
Contentions:
The police officials contended that with regard to custodial death of the deceased, the judicial inquiry disclosed that the deceased had committed suicide and died due to hanging rather than strangulation and that there was no scope of foul play.
On the contrary, the respondents submitted that CCTV footage of the police station, which would have shown the complainant and his mother being brought to the police station after being arrested and abused, was not produced, and purposely withheld. Neither was any arrest memo submitted in the court of jurisdictional magistrate nor were the complainant or his mother were produced in the court. The report by the Medical Board also conveyed several anti-mortem injuries found on the deceased pointing to the assault she faced in the custody.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court after listening to the submissions from both sides stated that the allegations against the police officials were serious in nature. The Court found that in the enquiry report, the statement of the complainant and the statement of doctors along with the anti-mortem findings of the Medical Board were such that the police officials did not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The Court, however, also stated that if the petitioners were to surrender and pray for regular bail in Court within four weeks from the current order, their prayer for regular bail would be considered on its own merit.
The Court, therefore, refusing the anticipatory bail, dismissed the application.
[Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 2524, order dated 06-06-2024.]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner(s): Arun Kumar,
For the Opposite Party: Kumar Gaurav, Jitendra Kumar Singh
For the Complainant: Ashok Kumar Singh
