Bikash Mondal vs State Of West Bengal And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 666 Cal

AD. 20.
January 28, 2021.
 MNS.

                                     W. P. A. 104 of 2021
                                   (Via video conference)

                                       Bikash Mondal
                                            Vs.
                              State of West Bengal and others

                       Mr. Durga Prasad Dutta,
                       Mr. Kaustav Chandra Das,
                       Mr. Sumanta Ganguly

                                        ... for the petitioner.

                       Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
                       Mr. Joydip Banerjee

                                 ...for the respondent-authorities.

The petitioner has levelled serious

allegations against the police authorities in this

writ petition.

It is alleged that the daughter of the

petitioner was arrested by the respondent-

authorities around 9 p.m. on December 23, 2020,

in contravention of several legal provisions

including Sections 41B, 46(4) and 57 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

It is further alleged that the lady was kept

in police custody and produced before the

Magistrate only on December 26, 2020.

Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner seeks production of the Close Circuit

Television (CCTV) footage for the relevant period

from 23rd to 25th December, 2020 in order to bring

the reality to light.

Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply

filed respectively by the parties today be kept on

record.

It appears from the affidavit-in-opposition

that the respondent-authorities have annexed

several documents, including at least three

communications from the Bodhghat police, in

respect of interrogation of the petitioner's

daughter in presence of a lady constable. It

appears from the materials annexed and the

records maintained with the police, including a G.

D. Extract from the Movement's Daily Register of

the Kasba Police Station, that the Kasba police

assisted the interrogation and subsequent arrest

of the lady concerned on the request of the

Bodhghat police, in connection with a specific

Police Case, bearing No. 203 of 2020, registered

with the Bodhghat police under Sections 420,

120B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is elaborated in the affidavit-in-

opposition that the lady was arrested in

connection with the investigation by the Bodhghat

police and on their request, in presence of her

father, who is the present petitioner, which even

appears from the memo of arrest annexed to the

affidavit-in-opposition.

The copy of the memo of arrest, annexed

at page- 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition, in fact,

indicates that the petitioner himself signed the

said memo and the arrest took place on

December 25, 2020 at about 10.50 a.m., and not

on the night of December 23, 2020, as alleged by

the petitioner. The petitioner's daughter, as it

appears from the materials on record, was duly

produced before the competent magistrate post-

arrest.

The signature of the petitioner on the

memo of arrest has not been denied in the

affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner. Rather, the

grievance of the petitioner centers around no

copy of the memo of arrest being made over to

the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a

judgment of the Supreme Court dated December

2, 2020, rendered in Special Leave Petition

(Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020 (Paramvir Singh

Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and others). It was

observed by the Supreme Court in the said

judgment, inter alia, that whenever there is

information of force being used at police stations

resulting in serious injury and/or custodial deaths,

it is necessary that persons be free to complain

for a redressal of the same, not only to be made

to the State Human Rights Commission, but also

to Human Rights Courts, which must be set up in

each district of every State or Union Territory

under Section 30 of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993. It was further held in the said

judgment that the Commission/Court can then

immediately summon CCTV footage in relation to

the incident for its safe keeping, which may then

be made available to an investigating agency in

order to further process the complaint made to it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

placed reliance on the observation in the cited

report, that, since the directions therein were in

furtherance of the fundamental rights of each

citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, and since nothing

substantial had been done in this regard for a

period of over 2½ years since the first order of the

Supreme Court dated April 3, 2018, the

executive/administrative/police authorities were to

implement the order both in letter and in spirit as

soon as possible.

The said judgment was rendered in

respect of implementation of the use of

photography and videography in the crime scene

by the State/Union Territory Governments and

other central agencies, to suggest the possibility

of setting up a central server for implementation

of videograpy and for issuance of appropriate

directions to ensure that use of videography

becomes a reality in a phased manner.

However, the ratio laid down in the said

judgment is not relevant for the present purpose,

since there is no material on record even to prima

facie establish that any unnecessary/unlawful

force was used on the petitioner's daughter or

that she suffered from any injury, let alone

serious.

CCTV footage of police stations, although

undoubtedly necessary in the event there are

specific allegations and prima facie material

regarding custodial torture, cannot be directed at

the drop of a hat, thereby compromising the

secrecy of other investigations going on in the

concerned police station.

In the present context, the petitioner has

feigned ignorance of his daughter being arrested

on December 25, 2020, which stand is belied by

the memo of arrest, which contains the signature

of the petitioner himself. Moreover, sufficient

material has been annexed to the affidavit-in-

opposition to indicate the reasons for the arrest of

the petitioner's daughter and even the relevant

case number of the police station at Bodhghat,

District- Bastar, Chattisgarh, has already been

disclosed. Hence, there does not appear to be

any ground for apprehension of custodial torture

being perpetrated upon the petitioner's daughter.

In the event the petitioner is worried about

the fate of his daughter, it is always open for the

petitioner to enquire from the appropriate

authorities at Bodhghat with reference to the

police case, the number of which has already

been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition as

well as in the present order.

However, there is no need to direct CCTV

footage to be furnished by the police or, for that

matter, for the writ court to interfere in the matter.

W. P. A. 104 of 2021 is thus disposed of

with liberty to the petitioner to approach the

Bodhghat police station at Bodhghat, District-

Bastar, Chattisgarh for further information

regarding the petitioner's daughter and the status

of the police case, in connection with which she

was arrested.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this

order, if applied for, be made available to the

parties upon compliance with the requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)