Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 12 December, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18th October, 2019
Decided on: 12th December, 2019
W.P (Crl.) No.2189/2018
SANDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.)
with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This petition raises significant questions regarding the procedure to be
followed by the police of one State, when they go to some other State or
Union Territory, to effect an arrest while investigating a complaint or a First
Information Report (FIR) disclosing a cognisable offence.
Background
2. The background in which the question arises is noticed in some detail in
the first order passed by this Court on 24th July, 2018 in the present petition,
which is essentially a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said order reads as under:
"1. The present petition by Sandeep Kumar seeks the issuance
of a writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents to produce
his wife, Nisha, before the Court. He states that he and Nisha
got married in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on 28th June 2018. The
Petitioner states that the marriage was conducted as per Hindu
customs and rituals after Nisha, a Muslim, embraced the Hindu
faith. It is stated that the marriage was registered with the
Marriage Registration Officer-V, Ghaziabad. A copy of the
marriage certificate is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-
3.
2. The Petitioner further states that on 2nd July 2018, Nisha's
father, namely Mohd. Intzar (Respondent No.3), visited his
residence at the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University ('JNU')
and created a ruckus and threatened both the Petitioner and
Nisha with dire consequences. The Petitioner states that at
around 8 pm on July 2018, the local police from PS Vasant
Kunj (North) accompanied by JNU security personnel and
others in civilian clothing forcibly took away Nisha and also
handed over the Petitioner to "other people" who were in
civilian clothing. The Petitioner- states that he was then taken to
PS Loni in Ghaziabad and kept in a police lockup for three days
and two nights and was abused and beaten. He names SI Sharad
Kant Sharma of PS Loni as the officer who threatened to
implicate him in a false case of rape if he tried to reunite with
Nisha. The Petitioner says that he was released from custody on
the night of 5th July 2018.
3. The Petitioner further states that his attempts thereafter to
locate his wife were in vain. He states that Nisha called him on
11th July 2018 sounding extremely distressed, expressed her
desire to return to him and informed him that even her life was
under threat.
4. Having received advance notice of the petition. Inspector
Gagan Bhaskar, SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North) has filed a
status report dated 24th July 2018. He states that at the instance
of Nisha's father, FIR No. 1217/2018 was registered at PS Loni
on 3rd July 2018 under Section 366 IPC. The complainant was
Azhar, the brother of Nisha, who reported that Nisha had been
abducted by the Petitioner Sandeep Kumar.
5. The status report goes on to state that, on 3rd July 2018, SI
Sharad Kant Sharma of PS Loni came to JNU along with his
staff and found Nisha present here. It is stated that she was
produced subsequently before the concerned Court where she
stated that she left her home in anger due to a quarrel with her
sister and is now returning to her family members of her own
free will. The status report further notes that Nisha was
accordingly "handed over to her parents by the investigating
officer". It is stated that on 20th July 2018, SI Sharad Kant
Sharma was again contacted telephonically and he confirmed
the, above facts. Azhar, the brother of Nisha, was also contacted
and he too stated that Nisha was present at home.
6. Today, Nisha has appeared along with her mother. SI Sharad
Kant Sharma of PS Loni, who is also present, states that Nisha
had made a statement under Section 164 Cr P C before the
ACJM-5, Ghaziabad that she was returning to her parents of her
own free will. However, he did not have a copy of the said
statement. On her part, before this Court Nisha expressed her
desire to return to the Petitioner.
7. At that stage, we decided that we should meet Nisha in the
chambers. Nisha reiterated that she wishes to return to Sandeep.
She stated that although she was born in 1995 her date of birth
in the records is shown as 1991. It should be noted at this
juncture that even according to her brother, Azhar, on whose
complaint the aforementioned FIR was registered, Nisha is
20/21 years old. In other words, there is no dispute that Nisha is
an adult who is entitled to take her own decisions.
8. Nisha confirmed to us that she had married Sandeep, the
Petitioner, of her own free will. She also confirmed that the
marriage was conducted in accordance with Hindu customs and
rituals. They also had a registered marriage at Ghaziabad. She
explained that she gave a statement before the ACJM-5,
Ghaziabad about, returning to her parents of her own free will
under pressure from her parents. She was worried about
something happening to her parents. She was expecting to
convince them to reconcile with the fact that she had married
Sandeep of her own free will and that is why she decided to
return to them.
9. Nisha requested us to call her mother so that she could again
reiterate, what she had said to us before her mother. We then
spoke to Nisha's mother and explained to her that although she
may have reservations about Nisha's marriage to someone of a
different religion, Nisha is entitled to make her choices as she
was an adult and cannot be put under any pressure in that
regard. Nisha's mother stated before us that it would be up to
Nisha to decide what she wanted to do with her life.
10. Since Nisha has reiterated before us, both in the Court as
well as in chamber, that she wishes to return to the Petitioner,
we direct that she can return from the Court itself with the
Petitioner who is also present and has been identified by his
lawyer as well as by Nisha.
11. In order to ensure that there is no untoward or unpleasant
incident hereafter, the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North) is
directed to visit the house of Sandeep and meet Sandeep's
family and provide any security which he thinks might be
necessary. We also direct SI Sharad Kant Sharma, who is
present here before us, to take all necessary steps to' ensure the
safety and security of Nisha's parents and family.
12. In the status report filed today nothing is stated about how
the police of PS Loni could so easily come to JNU and take
away the Petitioner and Nisha and how Nisha, despite being
over 21 years of age, was simply "handed over to her parents by
the investigating officer" knowing fully well that she had
married Sandeep of her own free will. Inspector Rajesh Kumar,
Additional SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North), stated that he had
no prior intimation of the visit by police officials from PS Loni
in Ghaziabad. If that is the case, it begs the question as to why
they did not insist on following the letter of the law and instead
simply allowed the police officials from PS Loni to take away
two adults from the JNU campus.
13. The Court, therefore, directs that SI Sharad Kant Sharma of
PS Loni will file an affidavit before this Court explaining how
he proceeded to act on the complaint received by him from
Azhar on the basis of which FIR No. 1217/2018 was registered
and, in particular, whether he informed the police officials at PS
Vasant Kunj (North) of his intention to visit JNU on 3 rd July
2018. He will also specifically answer the allegations about
Sandeep having been kept in custody in the police lockup at PS
Loni from 3rd July 2018 till the night of 5th July 2018 without
being produced before a Court.
14. The Court also directs Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the SHO
of PS Vasant Kunj (North), to file an affidavit explaining the
circumstances under which he permitted Sandeep and Nisha to
be taken away from JNU by the police of PS Loni without the
requirements of law being complied with.
15. Both these affidavits of SI Sharad Kant Sharma and
Inspector Gagan Bhaskar will be filed before the next date of
hearing. Both of them will remain present in the Court on the
next date. They will also report to the Court about the
compliance of the other directions. On the next date of hearing,
the Petitioner and Nisha need not be present.
16. List on 7th August, 2018.
17. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master."
Order appointing a Committee
3. Thereafter on 23rd August, 2018, the Court discussed the affidavit dated
4th August, 2018 filed by Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the Station House
Officer (SHO) of Police Station (PS) Vasant Kunj (North), as well as the
affidavit of the same date of Sub-Inspector (SI) Sharad Kant Sharma of PS
Loni in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Not satisfied with the two affidavits, the
Court decided to constitute a Committee to conduct an enquiry into the
matter and in particular the legality of the actions of the police attached to
PS Loni (Ghaziabad) and PS Vasant Kunj (North). The said order dated 23rd
August, 2018 of this Court reads as under:
"1. As far as the couple is concerned, the counsel for the
Petitioner informs the Court that even though there were some
threatening calls made to the Petitioner, as both he and his wife
have been provided personal security officers ('PSOs') pursuant
to the orders passed by this Court on 7 August 2018, they are
under no immediate threat at present. However, the Court
directs that the security arrangements made for the Petitioner
and his wife will continue until further orders.
2. In its order dated 24 July 2018, this Court has adverted to a
police officer from PS Loni in the State of Uttar Pradesh, viz.
SI Sharad Kant Sharma, coming to Jawaharlal National
University ('JNU') and taking away the Petitioner and his wife
Nisha without intimating the local police at PS Vasant Kunj
(North). The Court had also taken note of the Petitioner's claim
that he had been taken to PS Loni in Ghaziabad, kept in police
lock-up for three days and two nights, and was abused and
beaten. He had specifically named SI Sharma of PS Loni as the
office "who threatened to implicate him in a false case of rape if
he tried to reunite with Nisha". In this context, this Court had
directed Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the Station House Officer
('SHO') of PS Vasant Kunj (North), as well as SI Sharma of PS
Loni to file separate affidavits disclosing their respective
conduct in this matter.
3. In an affidavit dated 4th August, 2018 filed by Inspector
Bhaskar, it is stated that as per the record of PS Vasant Kunj
(North), "Sharad Kant Sharma neither informed the
undersigned nor lodged the arrival or departure in daily diary of
PS Vasant Kunj (North)". It is further stated in para 10 as
under:
"10. That on further enquiry after hearing of dated
24/07/2018, SI Sharad Kant Sharma informed that on
3.7.18 he met HC Rambir beat Head Constable posted
in JNU beat of Police Station Vasant Kunj North. On
enquiry from HC Rambir he stated that on 03/07/18 he
was present at JNU and met SI Sharad Kant Sharma of
Police Station Loni, Ghaziabad, UP who came for
investigation of a case. He went to H N. 471,
Pashchiamabad, JNU Campus, New Delhi with SI
Sharad Kant Sharma. SI Sharad Kant Sharma
conducted the enquiry and took the girl with him. HC
Rambir stated that he asked SI Sharad Kant Sharma to
go to the Police Station Vasant Kunj North and lodge a
DD entry in this regard and then proceed accordingly
with the investigation. SI Sharad Kant Sharma assured
him that he is going to Police Station Vasant Kunj
North. On this assurance he continued with his work in
JNU. However for his lapse departmental action have
been initiated."
4. The affidavit is silent on whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma
came to JNIJ in his uniform or in plain clothes. It is also silent
on whether the Petitioner was found in the room from where
Nisha is supposed to have accompanied SI Sharad Kant Sharma
and whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma in fact took the Petitioner
also along with him. The Court is dissatisfied with the above
affidavit that has been filed as it fails to answer the above key
issues that have already been noted by this Court in its order
dated 24th July 2018.
5. It is of concern that the deponent of the above affidavit,
Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North),
who is present in Court today, states that he did not ask HC
Rambir whether SI Sharad Kant Sharma came there in plain
clothes and whether the Petitioner was also picked up by him.
Inspector Bhaskar has shown to the Court a copy of a letter
dated 3August 2018 written by him to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police ('DCP'), South District, New Delhi
enclosing a 'misconduct report' and seeking initiation of
disciplinary action against HC Rambir [who is attached to PS
Vasant Kunj (North)]. It is surprising that Inspector Bhaskar
has till date not brought to the attention of the DCP (South
District) or the Commissioner of Police to the obvious failure of
SI Sharad Kant Sharma, attached to PS Loni in Ghaziabad to
inform the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North) before proceeding
to JNU.
6. The Court has also perused the affidavit dated 4th August,
2018 of SI Sharad Kant Sharma. He gives no explanation as to
why he did not inform the officials at PS Vasant Kunj (North)
before proceeding to JNU. He merely states that when he
reached JNU, one "local beat officer met me" and that
thereafter, he along with his own staff and the said beat officer
reached H.No.471, Pashchiamabad, JNU Campus, New Delhi
and then after some conversation, Nisha agreed to accompany
him of her own free will. He states that HC Rambir "was left at
JNU and was asked to inform PS Vasant Kunj (North) about the
girl's recovered". Apart from being silent about whether he
went in civil clothes, SI Sharma is in complete denial of having
picked up the Petitioner as well or having taken him to PS Loni.
7. The Court is not satisfied with this affidavit filed by SI
Sharma wherein he does not appear to have disclosed the
complete facts. It appears improbable that having proceeded on
the basis of an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence naming the
Petitioner as the main accused, SI Sharad Kant Sharma left JNU
without arresting the Petitioner.
8. It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that the affidavits filed
by the police officers are both dated 4 August 2018 and have
been attested by the same notary public. Further, consecutive
serial numbers appear on them. All of this points to both these
affidavits being prepared simultaneously. Neither of these
affidavits seem to address the concern of this Court with regard
to the blatant violation by SI Sharma of his legal obligation to
inform the officials at PS Vasant Kunj (North) of his coming to
JNU in plain clothes and taking into custody the Petitioner and
his wife.
9. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing counsel, fairly states that
this is a matter of grave concern and is far from a one-off
occurrence. In Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) ILR 6
Del 486, this Court noted with consternation that police
officials from Gujarat were able to arrest and takeaway a
juvenile from Delhi without informing the Delhi Police. Such
practice is obviously contrary to the police manuals and if such
actions go unchecked, it will amount to condoning lawlessness
by the police force. In a country governed by the rule of law,
this is simply unacceptable.
10. There are also instances of persons impersonating police
officers, producing fake identity cards and taking away persons
or property. It appears that the extant instructions on the
procedure to be followed by police officers of one State seeking
to arrest persons or conduct searches and investigation in
another State or Union Territory are not being observed. It is
time to revisit the procedures devised to ensure that the life and
liberty of persons is not compromised on account of the
lawlessness of the police force.
11. This Court accordingly constitutes the following Committee
to conduct an enquiry into the matter and in particular the
legality of the actions of the police attached to PS Loni
(Ghaziabad) including SI Sharad Kant Sharma and the PS
Vasant Kunj (North):
1. Justice S.P. Garg, former Judge of this Court
2. Ms. Kanwaljeet Deol, IPS former DG (Investigation), NHRC
12. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
Government of India is directed to ensure that there is a full
cooperation extended to the above Committee both by the Delhi
Police as well as the police in District Ghaziabad. The
Committee will be given full access to the relevant records and
is permitted to question the police personnel in both PSs. The
Committee will also be provided with all relevant circulars,
instructions and rules governing the procedure to be followed
by the police of one State when they go into some other State or
Union Territory while investigating a complaint/FIR. As part of
the report, the Committee will give suggestions on how the
system can be improved and such instances of violations by the
police of the procedure minimised. The Committee is free to
speak to such number of professionals, experts and former and
serving police officers including those in Delhi and Uttar
Pradesh as the Committee may consider appropriate.
13. The Committee is requested to submit its report to this
Court in a sealed cover on or before 30th September 2018. The
honorarium of the members of the Committee (which will be
fixed on the next date) and the reimbursement of the expenses
of travel, transport, secretarial assistance, and incidental
expenses will be borne in equal halves by the State of UP and
the Government of NCT of Delhi.
14. It will be open to the members of the Committee to seek
further directions. A complete set of paper book will be
supplied to each of the members. It will be open to the Standing
Counsel as well as the counsel for the Petitioner to make a
submission before the Committee.
15. The matter will be treated as part-heard and be listed on 12th
October, 2018 at 2.15 p.m.
16. Certified copies of this order be delivered forthwith through
a Special Messenger to the members of the Committee along
with a complete set of the paperbook and the previous orders. A
copy of this order also be delivered, again through Special
Messenger, forthwith to the Secretary, MHA, the Secretary
(Home) and the Director General of Police of the Government
of Uttar Pradesh, he Secretary (Home) Government of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi.
17. Order dasti."
4. By an order dated 12th October, 2018, this Court extended the time for the
committee to submit its report till 31st December, 2018. The Court noted that
the Committee had by then recorded the statement of 13 witnesses and had
completed one aspect of the inquiry. However, the Committee was not being
provided with the relevant circulars by the Director General of Police
(DGP), Uttar Pradesh, and the office of the Commissioner of Police (CP) of
Delhi despite request by the Committee by e-mails dated 19th and 27th
September, 2018. Consequently, the Court by the same order directed the
CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh to provide the committee with
information requested not later than 31st October, 2018.
The Committee's report
5. Pursuant to the above orders, the Committee has submitted its report
dated 4th February, 2019. There are specific findings of the Committee after
examining 13 witnesses including the police personnel attached to both the
police stations, i.e., PS Loni and PS Vasant Kunj. These findings could be
summarized as under:
(i) Nisha and Sandeep got married as per Hindu customs and rites on 28 th
June, 2018 with mutual consent. The marriage was registered at Ghaziabad.
This was an inter-religious marriage.
(ii) After marriage, both Sandeep and Nisha started living at Sandeep‟s
residence at the JNU Campus in Delhi. While Sandeep‟s parents had no
objection, Nisha‟s relatives were unable to reconcile with it. Instead of filing
a writ petition for habeas corpus to seek her production, they visited her at
the JNU Campus and insisted that she accompany them. She however
declined.
(iii) On 3rd July, 2018, Nisha‟s brother Azhar lodged a written complaint
with PS Loni levelling false allegations that Sandeep had kidnapped Nisha at
4 am on 28th June, 2018 and that she was not traceable. As a result, FIR
No.1217 of 2018 was registered at PS Loni against Sandeep under Section
366 IPC.
(iv) The investigation of the above FIR was assigned to SI Sharad Kant
Sharma. Accompanied by Lady Constable Neelam and Nisha‟s relatives,
Adil and Azhar, SI Sharma arrived in a Scorpio arranged by Nisha‟s
relatives at Sandeep‟s residence at JNU Campus at around 5 pm on 3 rd July,
2018. The police officials were in uniform.
(v) At the gate of JNU Campus, they met Head Constable (HC) Rambir
Meena, a Beat Constable from PS Vasant Kunj (North). HC Meena who
knew Sandeep‟s residence pointed out his house to the UP police. Nisha and
Sandeep and his parents were in the house at that time. Nisha was not in
illegal detention. She was unwilling to go with her relatives.
(vi) Sandeep and Nisha were taken in the Scorpio vehicle to PS Loni against
their wishes and consent. SI Sharma did not visit PS Vasant Kunj (North) to
record any arrival or departure entry. At PS Loni, Nisha was sent along with
her parents to her house. On the next day, she was taken for medical
examination but declined to undergo it.
(vii) Nisha‟s statement was recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate - V under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(„Cr PC‟). She disclosed that due to a quarrel with her sister Arshi, she had
left the house in anger. The statement was not voluntary. It was given under
emotional stress when she was informed that her father was ill. She was
prevailed upon to stay with her parents.
(viii) Nisha was given false assurances of her marriage with Sandeep.
During her stay with her parents, she was not permitted to talk to anyone.
She got a mobile from her father and spoke to Sandeep at around 2 am and
informed him that she was being illegally detained and that her parents
planned to marry her of to someone else. She insisted that Sandeep should
take her away from there.
(ix) Sandeep then filed the present writ petition in the Court for directions.
When Nisha was produced before this Court, she informed the Court that
she desired to stay with Sandeep. She then accompanied Sandeep to her
matrimonial home from the Court itself. Had Sandeep not taken recourse to
legal remedy, the investigating officer, i.e., SI Sharma would have been
successful in handing over Nisha‟s custody to her parents without her
consent.
Findings on the role of the police
6. As regards the role of the different police officials of the two PSs, the
Committee has returned the following categorical findings.
(i) SI Sharma of PS Loni manipulated the official record and made wrong,
incorrect and false entries.
(ii) "A fantastic story was concocted in Court" by SI Sharma stating that
Nisha had been recovered from a place near Delhi border in the State of UP
although Nisha was in fact picked up from Sandeep‟s residence at JNU
Campus, Delhi by him along with his team on 3 rd July, 2018. SI Sharma
recorded a false entry GD No.59 (Ex. PZ) at PS Loni to the effect that on the
basis of secret information received by him about the presence of Nisha at
Tiraha Loni, she was recovered from there. The Committee‟s categorical
finding is "this is absolute falsehood."
(iii) SI Sharma avoided showing Nisha‟s presence at Sandeep‟s house; he
suppressed his visit to Delhi without any prior permission of the higher
officers. SI Sharma did not make any departure entry at PS Loni indicating
his intention to visit Delhi along with Nisha‟s relatives in the Scorpio
arranged for by them. The Committee has drawn attention to Rule 22:50 of
the Punjab Police Rules (PPR) which prescribes a deterrent punishment for
making false entries in the Daily Diary (DD) knowingly or having reasons to
believe it to be untrue.
(iv) It stood proved that Sandeep was taken by SI Sharma along with Nisha
in the same vehicle to PS Loni. SI Sharma did not follow the due procedure.
He did not seek prior permission from senior officers to visit Delhi; he did
not report his arrival or departure at the local police station; he did not seek
any assistance, co-operation and permission from the local police to effect
recovery at Sandeep‟s residence. He did not verify the contents of the
written complaint by Nisha‟s bother/parents. He along with Nisha‟s relatives
proceeded to Delhi for her recovery in a vehicle arranged by her relatives.
He did not join any respectable person from the locality. He did not prepare
any document at the spot that he was taking Nisha and Sandeep to PS Loni.
(v) The Committee has found that Sandeep was not produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate at any time. His detention, for whatever duration,
remained illegal. Further, the Committee found that the moment police
officials of UP took Sandeep into the vehicle, it amounted to taking him into
custody. It is "highly unbelievable" that Nisha had accompanied UP police
willingly of her own accord. The UP police officials in uniform
accompanied by Nisha‟s relatives forced Nisha to sit in the same vehicle by
instilling fear in her mind. SI Sharma did not follow the law and legal
procedure while removing Nisha from the custody of her legally wedded
husband Sandeep. She was taken to PS Loni against her wishes.
(vi) The Committee has found that the power to arrest was grossly misused
by SI Sharma. He had no credible material justifying Sandeep‟s arrest; it
was arbitrary. Nisha was not under illegal detention by Sandeep. She was
living there of her own free will after marriage and was entitled to exercise
her choice and freedom. SI Sharma did not verify the genuineness of the
complaint, did not consider it necessary to issue notice under Section 160 of
the Cr PC to Sandeep, whose name and address was given in the FIR; SI
Sharma did not try to seek arrest/search warrants. The circumstances
indicate that SI Sharma did not act innocently. It smacks of preplanning and
a deliberate move. There was a gross violation of law and of safeguards
introduced in Section 41B of the Cr PC.
(vii) According to the Committee, there was no credible evidence to infer if
Sandeep was tortured or physically beaten in the lock up before release.
Sandeep did not get himself medically examined after release. It is on record
that Sandeep was criminally intimidated. The possibility of manhandling
could not be ruled out.
7. Turning to HC Rambir Meena, the Beat Constable from PS Vasant Kunj
(North), the Committee has recorded that he failed to ensure if SI Sharma
had prior to arriving at the JNU Campus, visited PS Vasant Kunj (North) or
had recorded any entry to seek assistance of local police. Even after SI
Sharma took Sandeep and Nisha away in the vehicle, HC Meena did not
inform the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj (North). On return to the PS Vasant
Kunj (North) in the evening, HC Meena did not record any entry showing
that SI Sharma and his team had visited Sandeep‟s residence and had taken
Nisha and Sandeep away with him. HC Meena did not intervene to protect
Nisha from being taken away without reason and legal authority from an
area within his jurisdiction. No information was recorded at PS Vasant Kunj
(North) that the UP police was taking with them individuals residing within
the jurisdiction of that PS.
8. As regards the other police personnel, the Committee observed that:
(i) SHO Gagan Bhaskar of PS Vasant Kunj (North) cannot be held liable
since it was not brought to his notice that the UP police had taken away
Sandeep and Nisha with them. However, he did not divulge the correct facts
in his affidavit to this Court. He got the affidavit casually prepared through
SI Manish Kumar without verifying the correct facts. The possibility of the
affidavits of SHO Gagan Bhaskar and SI Sharma be prepared at the same
time from the same Notary Public, could not be ruled out.
(ii) SHO Umesh Pandey of PS Loni did not initiate any action/proceedings
against SI Sharma at any time for his illegal actions/proceedings. His role in
the entire episode is under cloud and "his complicity in the incident cannot
be ruled out". His acts do not at all appear to be justified and reasonable.
(iii) Lady Constable Neelam, attached to PS Loni failed to make any entry at
PS Loni about her arrival and departure on that day. She was complicit in
the illegal acts in taking and keeping Nisha and Sandeep in custody. She did
not object to the DD entry 59 whereby Nisha was shown to have been
recovered from Tiraha Loni in her presence.
9. It is, thus, seen that the Committee has, on the basis of evidence presented
to it, found enough prima facie material against SI Sharma, SHO Umesh
Pandey and Lady Constable Neelam attached to PS Loni. The Committee
has also commented adversely on the conduct of HC Rambir Meena and to a
lesser extent against Inspector Gagan Bhaskar, the SHO of PS Vasant Kunj
(North).
Directions regarding the conduct of the police
10. As far as the conduct of the above police officials is concerned, the
Court directs that a copy of the report of the Committee be immediately
forwarded both to the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh for appropriate
disciplinary action to be initiated on the basis of the said report against the
above named police officials under their respective control and supervision.
Needless to state that each of them will in turn be provided with a copy of
the report and be given opportunity of defending themselves in the
disciplinary inquiry in accordance with law. The report of the Committee
will constitute prima facie material as far as the enquiry is concerned. The
disciplinary inquiry in each case will be held by a senior level official,
strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed, and will be completed
not later than six months from the date of receipt by the CP, Delhi and the
DGP, Uttar Pradesh respectively of the copy of the report of the Committee
together with the certified copy of this order.
Committee's suggestions on the procedure
11. The other important part of the report of the Committee concerns the
non-compliance by the police personnel with the law and the prescribed
procedure. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India which mandates that
"Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced
before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such
arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest
to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in
custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate." There
are exceptions carved out in Article 22 (3) but those do not get attracted in
the instant case.
12. Sections 56 and 57 of the Cr.P.C. further reiterate the above
Constitutional mandate. There are specific provisions in the Cr.P.C. that set
out in detail the procedure to be followed for inter-state arrests. Some of
these provisions were introduced as a result of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in D. K. Basu v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 416. The relevant
provisions read thus:
"41B. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest: Every
police officer while making an arrest shall:
(a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will
facilitate easy identification;
(b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be:
(i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of
the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the
arrest is made;
(ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and
(c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a
member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named
by him to be informed of his arrest."
"48. Pursuit of offenders into other jurisdictions.: Police officer may, for
the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised
to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India."
"77. Where warrant may be executed: A warrant of arrest may be
executed at any place in India."
"79. Warrant directed to police officer for execution outside
jurisdiction.
(1) When a warrant directed to a police officer is to be executed beyond the
local jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for
endorsement either to an Executive Magistrate or to a police officer not
below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station, within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed.
(2) Such Magistrate or police officer shall endorse his name thereon and
such endorsement shall be sufficient 41 authority to the police officer to
whom the warrant is directed to execute the same, and the local police shall,
if so required, assist such officer in executing such warrant.
(3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by
obtaining the endorsement of the Magistrate or police officer within whose
local jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed will prevent such execution,
the police officer to whom it is directed may execute the same without such
endorsement in any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court which
issued it."
"80. Procedure on arrest of person against whom warrant issued.--
When a warrant of arrest is executed outside the district in which it was
issued, the person arrested shall, unless the Court which issued the warrant
is within thirty kilometres of the place of arrest or is nearer than the
Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner
of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the arrest was made, or
unless security is taken under section 71, be taken before such Magistrate or
District Superintendent or Commissioner."
13. A manual titled "Functions, Roles and Duties of Police in General"
Brought out by the Bureau of Police Research and Development
(http://www.bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/6798203243-
Volume%202.pdf) explains the steps to be taken in regard to inter-state
crimes. The relevant extracts read as under:
"Crime of one Police Station (hereafter "PS"), reported at other PS:
If a crime committed in the jurisdiction of another PS within the State is
reported to the Station House Officer of a Police Station, a First Information
Report should be issued and its substance entered in the Station House
Diary.
Action by PS where crime is reported:
If the place of occurrence is near and is easily accessible from the Station
House, the Station House Officer will at once proceed to the spot, take up
investigation and continue it till relieved by the police having jurisdiction.
Simultaneously, action will be taken to send immediate intimation to the
police having jurisdiction over the place. When the investigation is taken
over by the latter, the First Information Report should be transferred.
When crime is reported at the nearest PS:
If the place of occurrence is far off, immediate intimation should be sent to
the police having jurisdiction over the place by the quickest possible means
and the First Information Report transferred to them simultaneously. If any
of the persons, who are reasonably believed to have taken part in the
offence, are found in the limits of the station where the offence is reported
and if the offence alleged against them is of a serious nature and there is
reasonable apprehension that they will abscond unless immediately taken 47
into custody, they should be arrested and produced before the court having
jurisdiction, intimation of their arrest being promptly sent to the Police
Station within the jurisdiction of which the offence occurred.
When crime of another State is reported:
If a report relates to a cognizable offence that was committed outside the
State, it will be entered in the Station House Diary and a certified copy of
the entry will be given to the person who made the report and he will be
referred to the Station House Officer within whose jurisdiction the offence
took place. If any of the persons who are reasonably believed to have taken
part in the commission of the offence are found in the State territory outside
the jurisdiction of the PS, and if the offence alleged against them is of a
serious nature and there is reasonable apprehension that they will abscond
unless immediately taken into custody, they will be arrested and produced
before the court having jurisdiction, intimation of their arrest being promptly
sent to the Police Station within the jurisdiction of which the offence
occurred."
14. In the present case, the Committee, inter alia, examined the above
provisions as well as a circular issued by the CP, Delhi dated 7th September,
2012, pursuant to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 16th May, 2012
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) setting out the steps to be
followed regarding arrest of an accused outside the State/Union Territory
where the compliant/FIR is registered. This procedure is based on Sections
48, 77, 79 and 80 of the Cr.P.C. Particular to Delhi. This circular mandates
that police officers arresting an accused/fugitive outside Delhi should
establish contact with the concerned State police. It states that endeavour
should be made to obtain a transit remand unless exigency of the situation
warrants otherwise. The person can be produced before the Magistrate
having jurisdiction of the case without infringing the mandate of Article 22
of the Constitution and Sections 56 and 57 of the Cr.P.C. The Committee
also examined the procedure followed in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Kerala.
15. The Committee has, after examining all of the above material in detail,
given detailed suggestions as to the protocol to be followed by the police in
the event of inter-state arrest. These read as under:
"1. The Police Officer after assignment of the case to him, must
seek prior permission/sanction of the higher/superior officers in
writing or on phone (in case of urgency) to go out of State/UT
to carry out investigation.
2. In a case when the police officer decides to effect an arrest,
he must set out the facts and record reasons in writing
disclosing the satisfaction that arrest is necessary for the
purpose of investigation. At first instance, he should move the
Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek arrest/search warrants under
Section 78 and 79 Cr PC except in emergent cases when the
time taken is likely to result in escape of the accused or
disappearance of incriminating evidence or the procurement of
arrest/search warrant would defeat the purpose. The Police
Officer must record reasons as to what were the compelling
reasons to visit other State without getting arrest/search
warrants.
3. Before proceeding outside the State, the police officer must
make a comprehensive departure entry in the Daily Diary of his
Police Station. It should contain names of the police officials
and private individuals accompanying him; vehicle number;
purpose of visit; specific place(s) to be visited; time and date of
departure.
4. If the possible arrestee is a female, a lady police officer be
made part of the team. The Police Officers should take their
identity cards with them. All police officers in the team should
be in uniform; bear accurate, visible and clear identification and
name tags with their designations.
5. Before visiting the other State, the Police Officer must
endeavour to establish contact with the local Police Station in
whose jurisdiction he is to conduct the investigation. He must
carry with him the translated copies of the Complaint/FIR and
other documents in the language of the State which he intends
to visit.
6. After reaching the destination, first of all, he should inform
the concerned police station of the purpose of his visit to seek
assistance and co-operation. The concerned SHO should
provide/render all legal assistance to him. Entry to this effect
must be made at the said police station.
7. After reaching the spot of investigation, search, if any should
be strictly conducted in compliance of the procedure laid down
u/s 100 Cr PC. All endeavour should be made to join
independent public witnesses from the neighbourhood. In case
of arrest, the police officer must follow the procedure u/s 41A
and 41B and Section 50 and 51 Cr PC. The process of arrest
carried out by the police must be in compliance with the
guidelines given in DK Basu case (Supra) and the provisions of
CrPC.
8. The arrested person must be given an opportunity to consult
his lawyer before he is taken out of State.
9. While returning, the police officer must visit the local police
station and cause an entry made in the Daily Diary specifying
the name and address of the person(s) being taken out of the
State; articles if any, recovered. The victim's name be also
indicated.
10. Endeavor should be made to obtain transit remand after
producing the arrestee before the nearest Magistrate unless
exigencies of the situation warrant otherwise and the person can
be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction of the
case without infringing the mandate of S. 56 and 57 of Cr.P.C.
within 24 hours.
11. The magistrate before whom the arrestee is produced, must
apply his mind to the facts of the case and should not grant
transit remand mechanically. He must satisfy himself that there
exists material in the form of entries in the case diary that
justifies the prayer for transit remand. The act of directing
remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial decision. The
magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering
detention of the accused. He must ensure that requirements of
S. 41 (l)(b) are satisfied. The police officer must send the case
diary along with the remand report so that the magistrate can
appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether
there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial
remand or there is no need for any remand at all. The magistrate
should briefly set out reasons for his decision.
(Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314)
12. Another mandatory procedural requirement for the
Magistrate considering a transit remand application is spelt out
in Article 22 (1) of Constitution of India. This entitles the
person arrested to be informed as soon as may be the grounds
of such arrest. The Magistrate has to ensure that the arrested
person is not denied the right to consult and to be defended by a
legal practitioner of his choice. The Magistrate should ask the
person arrested brought before him whether in fact he has been
informed of the grounds of arrest and whether he requires to
consult and be defended by any legal practitioner of his choice.
(DK Basu, Supra) After the pronouncement of this judgment by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, new Sections 41A to 41D have
been added to prevent unnecessary arrest and misuse of powers.
Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.
13. In terms of S. 41C, control rooms be established in every
district. Names and addresses of the persons arrested and
designation of the Police Officers who made the arrest be
displayed. Control Room at State level must collect details of
the persons so arrested.
14. The police officer must record all the proceedings
conducted by him at the spot and prepare an 'arrest memo'
indicating time, date of arrest and name of the relation/friend to
whom intimation of arrest has been given. It must reveal the
reasons for arrest.
15. Since the arrestee is to be taken out of his State to a place
away where he may not have any acquaintance, he may be
permitted to take along with him (if possible), his family
member/acquaintance to remain with him till he is produced
before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such family member
would be able to arrange legal assistance for him.
16. The arrested person must be produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest, in any case, not beyond
24 hours from the date of arrest excluding the journey time so
that arrest of such person and his detention, if necessary, may
be justified by a judicial order. The 24 hours period prescribed
u/s 57 Cr PC is the outermost limit beyond which a person
cannot be detained in police custody. It does not empower a
police officer to keep a person in police station a minute longer
than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it does not
give him an absolute right to keep a person till 24 hours.
17. On arrival at the police station, the police officer must make
an arrival entry in the record and indicate the investigation
carried out by him, the person arrested and the articles
recovered. He should also inform his senior police
officers/SHO concerned about it immediately. The superior
Police Officer shall personally supervise such investigation.
18. The police officer should effect arrest u/s 41(l)(b) Cr PC
only when he has reasonable suspicion and credible
information. He must satisfy himself about the existence of the
material to effect arrest. There must be definite facts or
averments as distinguished from vague surmises or personal
feelings. The materials before him must be sufficient to cause a
bona-fide belief. He cannot take shelter under another person's
belief or judgment. He must affect arrest at his own risk and
responsibility as the effect of illegal arrest could be commission
of offence of wrongful confinement punishable u/s 342 IPC.
Burden lies on the IO to satisfy the Court about his bona-fide.
No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer
to do so. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.
19. Medical examination soon after arrest to avoid possibility of
physical torture during custody should be conducted.
20. The IO must maintain a complete and comprehensive case
diary indicating the investigation carried out by him.
21. The log book of the vehicle used for transportation must be
maintained and signed. The IO must indicate whether the
vehicle was official or a private one; name of its driver and how
and by whom it was arranged. Only official vehicle should be
used for transportation to the extent possible.
22. At the time of recovery of the prosecutrix, the police officer,
if he is satisfied that she is adult, should ascertain from her at
the spot, whether she was present there with her free will. If the
victim/prosecutrix is not willing to accompany the police
officer or her relatives, the police officer must not exert force
on the prosecutrix to take her away against her wishes.
However, if the prosecutrix/victim of her own accord expresses
willingness to accompany the police officer/relatives, her
consent in writing should be obtained at the spot.
23. In case where the police officer finds the victim/prosecutrix
to be a 'minor', soon after recovery, she should be produced
before the local Child Welfare Committee for further decision
regarding her custody. She must not be made to stay in the
Police Station during night hours.
24. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. must be
recorded at the earliest.
25. MHA/Central Govt/Commissioner of Police must frame
suitable guidelines for police officers to render all suitable
assistance. The failure to adhere to the rules/guidelines should
render the police officer liable for departmental action as well
as contempt of the Court.
26. The public prosecutor should provide required assistance to
the police officer visiting his State at the time of seeking transit
remand.
27. The MHA/State Government should circulate the
Rules/Guidelines/Notifications etc from time to time to the
Police officers in the State to create awareness. Periodically
training should be provided to the Police Officers to sensitize
them.
28. Instructions/Guidelines of similar nature should exist in all
the States/UTs for speedy, smooth and effective inter-State
investigation.
29. The delinquent Police Officer can be directed to pay
compensation under the public law and by way of strict
liability."
16. There is a further suggestion by way of addition to the report which
reads as under:
"In partial modification of the joint report, it is suggested that
if, in case of urgency or other considerations in the interest of
investigation, it is not found feasible to inform the police station
encompassing the jurisdiction of the search, seizure, arrest or
investigation before the event, this should be done soon after
the search, seizure, arrest etc. has been conducted. In all cases a
diary entry should mandatorily be made in the police station of
jurisdiction. Extant instructions of various state forces such as
Karnataka already include this provision of informing after the
event. Section 166 Cr PC also relevantly requires that if a
search has to be conducted in another police station, the SHO
may require the SHO of that police jurisdiction to do the
needful. In case there are chances of loss of evidence, he may
himself get the search conducted and forthwith inform the
officer of the concerned police station."
17. Considering that the Committee comprised of a former Judge of this
Court and a former DGP of the Delhi Police who was a police officer of the
Indian Police Service, the Court accepts the above suggestions and directs
that they be adopted for implementation by the CP, Delhi as well as the
DGP, Uttar Pradesh in their respective jurisdictions. Orders to this effect
shall be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two
weeks.
Compensation to the Petitioner and his wife
18. Now for the last part, which is compensating Sandeep and Nisha both of
whom were wrongfully taken into custody. While Sandeep was forcibly
detained in PS Loni in violation of the law, Nisha was against her wishes
handed over to her parents by SI Sharma attached to PS Loni.
19. The Court notes that this is not a one-off instance of failure by the police
official of a particular State where an FIR/complaint has been registered and
the police officials have failed to follow the due procedures set out in the
Cr.P.C. and other instructions issued from time to time concerning arrest of
persons in a different State/Union Territory. Some of these instances
constitute the subject matter in the decisions of various High Courts.
Illustratively reference could be made to the decisions in State of Manipur
v. Luis Topno 2012 SCC OnLine Gau 830, Avneesh Mishra v. State of UP
2013 SCC OnLine All 13956, Kura Rajaiah @ K. Rajanna v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh 2007 Cri LJ 2031. The Court would also like to refer to
the decision of this Court in Tasleema v. The State (NCT of Delhi) ILR
(2009) VI Delhi 486, where a 14-year-old boy was picked up by the Gujarat
police from Delhi and taken to Gujarat without following the due procedure.
20. This Court is conscious that this is not the first occasion where a
constitutional Court has been asked to declare a wrongful arrest to be
unconstitutional and for compensation to be awarded as a result thereof to
the victim. Among the earliest of such cases was Bhim Singh, MLA v. State
of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677. There the Petitioner, a Member of the J&K
Legislative Assembly, was deliberately prevented from attending the session
of the Legislative Assembly by being wrongfully arrested and detained. The
Supreme Court observed that the police had acted "in a most high-handed
way". It went on to observe:
"Police Officers who are the custodians of law and order should
have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and
should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of
lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become
depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to
abduct. However, the two police officers, the one who arrested
him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but
minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the
slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with
the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on
the material now before us. We have no doubt that the
constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with
impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to
make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and
adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to
award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs
otherwise is now established by the decisions of this court
in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr. 1983 (3) SCR 508
and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India 1984 AIR SC
1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he
has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or
malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were
invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be
washed away or wished away by his being set free. In
appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the
victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We
consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent,
the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from today. The amount
will be deposited with the Registrar of this court and paid to
Shri Bhim Singh."
21. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Supreme
Court outlined the legal principle governing the grant of compensation for
constitutional wrongs as under:
"35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of
the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and
jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to
the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to
have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to
repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental
rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to
the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The
State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take
such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in
accordance with law - through appropriate proceedings. Of
course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226
would be granted only once it is established that there has
been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen
and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the
facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions
of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul
Sah v. State of Bihar granted monetary relief to the victims for
deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through
petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of
India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law
to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of
such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the
wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have moulded
the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise
of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into
account not only the interest of the applicant and the
respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with
a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act
unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly
particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under
Article 21 is concerned."
22. In Tasleema v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court was called upon to decide whether the Petitioner should be
compensated by the State of Gujarat, as a public law remedy, by way of
strict liability, for the misadventure of its police officials in taking away her
minor son, without reason and without the authority of law, from Delhi to a
lock-up in Ahmedabad. These questions were to be decided in the backdrop
of the allegation that the Petitioner, her husband and children were
Bangladeshis. After finding the State of Gujarat liable to pay compensation
to the victim, this Court turned its attention to question of computation of
compensation and held:
"64. Now comes the question of how to calculate the amount of
compensation that should be awarded to the petitioner and her son
Shamim. In Bhim Singh (supra), a case decided in 1985, the Supreme
Court had awarded a sum of Rs 50,000/- by way of compensation for
the deprivation of personal liberty of Mr Bhim Singh by the police
officials of the J & K Government. We see no reason to award
anything less, particularly, as, in the present case we are concerned
with the deprivation of the personal liberty of a minor...."
23. In the facts and circumstances, the Court directs that compensation of
Rs.50,000/- each to both Sandeep and Nisha shall be paid by the State of
Uttar Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police which stands
established prima facie by the report of the Committee. The amounts should
be paid within a period of four weeks along with a letter written by the
Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh himself, apologizing to each of
them for the conduct of his police officials.
Summary of Directions
24. The petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) A copy of the report of the Committee be immediately forwarded both to
the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh for appropriate disciplinary action
to be initiated on the basis of the said report against the police officials
under their respective control and supervision as directed in para 10 of this
judgment.
(ii) The disciplinary inquiry in each case will be held by a senior level
official, strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed, and will be
completed not later than six months from the date of receipt respectively by
the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh respectively of the copy of the
report of the Committee together with the certified copy of this order.
(iii) The suggestions of the Committee as set out in paras 15 and 16 of this
judgment are directed to be adopted for implementation both by the Delhi
Police and the police in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Orders to this effect shall
be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two weeks
(iv) A certified copy of this judgment together with a complete copy of the
report of the Committee (together with its annexures) will be delivered
forthwith to the CP, Delhi by a Special Messenger. Likewise copy of this
judgment together with a complete copy of the report of the Committee
(together with its annexures) will be delivered forthwith to the DGP, Uttar
Pradesh by an approved courier and the tracking report of proof of delivery
shall be kept in the file.
(v) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both Sandeep and Nisha shall be
paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police
which stands established prima facie by the report of the Committee. The
amounts should be paid within a period of four weeks along with a letter
written to each of them personally by the Director General of Police of Uttar
Pradesh himself, apologizing to each of them for the conduct of his police
officials.
(vi) The CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh will file compliance reports
in this Court within six months and in any event not later than 30 th June
2020. The Registry will place the petition for this purpose before the Court
immediately after the Court reopens i.e. 6th July 2020.
25. The Court thanks the Committee comprising Justice S. P. Garg, a former
Judge of this Court and Ms. Kanwaljeet Deol, IPS former DG
(Investigation), NHRC for conducting a thorough enquiry and submitting a
comprehensive report containing useful suggestions for improving the
system and putting in place a series of steps that can prevent recurrence of
such incidents.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 12, 2019
aa
