Sanjay Tyagi vs State Of U.P. & 6 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3467 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21217 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Tyagi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Niranjan,Dharampal Singh,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Chandra Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.

Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

We have heard Sri Dharmpal Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

The petitioner is a journalist and was a Bureau Chief of Saharanpur edition of Dainik Jagran Hindi Newspaper. It transpires that the petitioner was named in Case Crime No. 133 of 2003, under Section 386 I.P.C. at Police Station, Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur which was subsequently numbered as 1536 of 2012 in which the petitioner who acquitted by an order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the trial Court.

The petitioner contends that on 17th January, 2016 around 3.00 o'clock the police team comprising of respondent no. 7 Sub-inspector and four other members of the police force entered the house of the petitioner and took him into custody. The petitioner alleges that he was released on 18th January, 2016 at about 6.00 pm after being detained for more than 24 hours at Police Station after a certified copy of the acquittal order was produced before them. The petitioner contends that the illegal detention by respondent no. 7 was in violation of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416. The petitioner has consequently filed the present writ petition praying that he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 50 lacks only for the illegal detention made by the police officers especially respondent no. 7 for more than 24 hours without being produced before the Magistrate. This Court entertained the writ petition and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The original G.D. entry has also been produced.

From the affidavits filed by the various authorities and from the perusal of the G.D. it transpires that the police team was constituted on 17th January, 2016 from Police Station Kotwali Dehat in District Saharanpur. This team departed to arrest the petitioner on account of fact that the petitioner was declared an absconder in Case Crime No. 133 of 2003 as per the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 16th March, 2015. The counter affidavit reveals that the petitioner was taken into custody from his residence and brought to the Police Station and was released upon production of a photocopy of the acquittal order dated 14.12.2012 on the same date, i.e., 17th January, 2016 at 10.45 pm. This fact is disputed by the petitioner contending that he was detained for more than 24 hours and was only released when a certified copy of the order of acquittal was produced on 18th January, 2016. It was contended that the certified copy of the order was obtained on 18th January, 2016 from the Court below and the same was produced before the police authorities pursuant to which he was released at about 6.00 pm on 18th January, 2016.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and upon perusal of the affidavits as well as the G.D. which has been produced, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner with regard to the fact that he was released on 18th January, 2016 after being detained for more than 24 hours. The production of a certified copy of the order of acquittal before the police authorities is not proved. From a perusal of the entries made in the G.D. we find that the petitioner was released at 10.45 pm on 17th January, 2016 upon production of a photocopy of the order of acquittal by the relatives of the petitioner. At the time of releasing the petitioner, his signature was appended the G.D. which fact has not been disputed by the petitioner nor it is alleged that his signatures were obtained on blank pages. Consequently, we find that the claim of the petitioner that he was detained for more than 24 hours and consequently there was an infringement of his liberty which was guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not proved from the record that has been placed before us. The claim of the petitioner for exemplary damages of Rs. 50 lacks as compensation thus, cannot be granted.

However, we find that the police has acted arbitrarily in the instant case while taking the petitioner in custody from his residence and detaining him at the Police Station without any reasonable cause. The reason for the petitioner's detention is the order of S.S.P. dated 16th March, 2015 in which the petitioner is shown to have been declared as an absconder in Case Crime No. 133 of 2003. This declaration was patently erroneous, inasmuch as, the trial Court had acquitted him in the same crime by an order of 14th December, 2012. This fact was in the knowledge of the police authorities and the respondents cannot contend that they were unaware the acquittal order. Such entry in the register declaring the petitioner as an absconder without verifying it from the Court cannot be digested. Thus on this aspect, we find that the police authorities have not applied their mind and have unnecessarily detained the petitioner without any rhyme or reason.

We also find another fact which has not been recorded in the G.D., namely, the date and time of detention of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case (supra) had issued clear guidelines and one such direction was that the time and date of the person being arrested or detained in custody should be mentioned in the G.D. and the next of friend should also be intimated, if he has detained outside his District, which action in the instant case has not been done. We find that the team who had taken the petitioner into custody was from Police Station Kotwali Dehat in District Saharanpur whereas the petitioner was arrested from District Baghpat which was in the jurisdiction of Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat. The law is settled, namely, that if a police team arrests a person outside its territorial jurisdiction, it is required to intimate the local police station which in the instant case was not done. Consequently, the manner in which the operation was carried out by the team constituted to arrest the petitioner appears to have acted in an arbitrary manner and against the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case (supra).

We accordingly are of the opinion that the petitioner by this illegal detention for a couple of hours was unnecessarily harassed, and his reputation was tarnished to some extent. What was the ultimate damage that was caused to the petitioners reputation is not known nor it can be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction but nontheless exemplary cost can be imposed for the manner in which the petitioner was taken into illegal custody. We accordingly are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a notional cost. We accordingly, impose a cost of Rs. one upon the police authorities. The Senior Superintendent of Police will pay a sum of Rs. 1/- to the petitioner by means of a cheque within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Senior Superintendent of Police will conduct an enquiry with regard to the entry of the petitioner as an absconder as well as the arbitrary action taken by the team which was constituted to arrest the petitioner. Such enquiry will be completed and punishment order will be passed against the erring official/officials within three months from the date of a production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter entry will be made in the service record of the such officials.

The writ petition is disposed of.

The original G.D. produced by the respondents is been returned to the Standing Counsel, who will make an endorsement of the receipt of the record in the order sheet.

Order Date :- 22.8.2017

SK Srivastava

.

(Ashok Kumar,J.)      (Tarun Agarwala,J.)