Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Serious Allegations Demand Accountability: Patna High Court Denies Bail To SHO in Custodial Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Applications for pre-arrest bail by police officials, including the Officer-in-Charge, dismissed in a case of alleged custodial death and torture

The Patna High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to the accused in a high-profile custodial death case, affirming the gravity of allegations against the police officials involved. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, highlighted the conflicting evidence and the necessity for accountability in custodial death cases.

The case stems from an incident on September 8, 2021, when Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, the then Officer-in-Charge of Piro Police Station, along with other police personnel, allegedly forcibly entered the house of the complainant, Prakash Kumar, and detained him and his mother, Shobha Devi, without a warrant. They were taken to Piro Police Station, where Shobha Devi was allegedly tortured and denied basic necessities, leading to her death on September 12, 2021. A judicial inquiry initially suggested suicide, but post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries pointed towards custodial torture, contradicting the inquiry’s findings.

Seriousness of Allegations:

The court underscored the severe nature of the charges against the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, the then Officer-in-Charge of Piro Police Station, and three constables. The accusations included wrongful confinement, assault, and the custodial death of Shobha Devi. The court stated, “The kind of serious allegations against the police officers who are in a position of trust would not deserve any sympathy, and it would not be a fit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail.”

Contradictory Judicial Inquiry and Evidence:

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad addressed the discrepancy between the judicial inquiry’s conclusion and the medical evidence. While the inquiry suggested suicide, post-mortem reports indicated multiple anti-mortem injuries, contradicting the suicide theory. “The inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide, but the medical evidence and complainant’s deposition indicated custodial torture,” the court noted. The medical findings included bruises and fractures, which pointed towards physical assault.

The judgment emphasized the importance of thorough investigation and accountability in cases of custodial death. The court referenced the landmark cases such as Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating the necessity of a rigorous legal framework to address such grave violations of human rights.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad remarked, “The death has taken place in police custody, and the kind of injuries present on the body of the deceased would be enough to show that she was brutally assaulted in police custody. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner(s) do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.”

The Patna High Court’s dismissal of the pre-arrest bail applications sends a strong message regarding the judiciary’s stance on custodial violence and the importance of upholding human rights. By affirming the need for accountability and thorough investigation, the judgment reinforces the legal framework for addressing cases of custodial death and torture. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to justice and human dignity.

 

Date of Decision: 6th June 2024

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary @ Ashok Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Prakash Kumar @ Nitu

Latest Legal News