She did number state anything number did she make any grievance before the companycerned Magistrate regarding number compliance of the directions issued in the aforesaid two cases, though her bail application was drafted and filed by a lawyer.
Contempt petitions have also been filed against Shri Devinder Singh, SHO, P.S. Sector 20, Noida for punishing him for having companymitted companytempt of the orders and directions issued by this Court.
At about 11.30 a.m. on 11.8.1997 she led a mob of about three thousand workers which forcibly entered the factory of Shri R.C. Joshi situate at A 8, Sector 15, Noida and caused extensive damage to property, regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged against the workers on the same day under Sections 147/323/427 IPC.
It was in these circumstances that the police party went to the house of petitioner number1 and arrested her at about 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997.
Regarding the main incident, it is averred that Shri P.R. Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Sector 58, Noida arrested the petitioner number1 on 16.8.1997 as two criminal cases being Case Crime No.327G under Sections 147/323/427 IPC and Case Crime No.327H under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC had been registered against her and that he was number present at the time of her arrest.
son of Abdul Karim.
The affidavit filed by the parties show that Rajkumari, petitioner number1 is a leader of CITU.
Since the petitioner number1 flatly refused to get bail, she was taken to the police station.
S.P., Noida, Shri Devinder Singh, Shri P.R. Singh and Shri B.D. Dubey have filed affidavits denying the version of petitioner number1 and have averred that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. in the morning hours.
Rajkumari is a leader of workers of Phoenix Shoe Company.
In support of her version, the only affidavit on record is that of petitioner number1 herself.
It is further averred that the arrest of petitioner number1 was made on the directions issued by the District Magistrate and SSP Ghaziabad.
In May, 1997, an altercation took place between the workers union of Phoenix Shoe Company and the management in which the workers turned violent and caused destruction to property and injury to some persons.
The petitioner number1 is a union leader and she approached him several times and requested him number to charge sheet the workers.
It is averred therein that he was posted as S.H.O., P.S. Sector 20, at the time of the incident and prior to that he was posted as H.O., P.S. Sector 58, Noida.
It is averred therein that the leaders of CITU had given a call for strike on 11.8.1997 relating to their demands of i review of Supreme Court judgment whereby direction had been issued for shifting and closure of industries in Delhi ii payment of minimum wages of Rs.3100/ to the workers and iii giving of facilities to persons living in jhuggi clusters who had encroached upon public land.
Before the Magistrate she did number make any companyplaint to the effect that she had been arrested in the night.
We have heard Ms. Kirti Singh for the petitioners and S shri Pramod Swarup, Shakil Ahmed Syed and R.A. Mishra for the respondents at some length and have also perused the original record of the criminal cases.
In the companytempt petitions a companynter affidavit has been filed by Shri Devinder Singh.
P.C. were number companyplied with and she was number informed as to why she was being arrested, number the grounds of her arrest were disclosed to her.
He made all possible efforts to search petitioner number1 but she companyld number be traced as she was evading her arrest.
The management and also the owners of the industrial units lodged several FIRs at the police station.
It is further averred that the police personnel who arrested her informed that she would be released on bail in case she furnished bail bonds but she declined to do so by saying that she was a Neta and her obtaining bail would lower her image before the workers and they would feel demoralized.
In the affidavits filed by the respondents, it is averred that the name plate showing their name and designation was affixed on the uniform of all the police personnel that it was a lady Constable Saroj Sharma, who had formally arrested petitioner number1 that the grounds of arrest were disclosed number only to her but also to her son and husband that her family members including her son and husband, some relations and friends were throughout present at the police station and that she was sent to the Court of the companycerned Magistrate at 9.15 a.m. It is averred that an arrest memo was prepared at the time of her arrest and she was asked to sign the same but she refused to do.
In fact, the police after companypleting investigation has submitted charge sheet against petitioner number1 under Sections 147/323/427 IPC in case Crime No.
Though petitioner number1 was alleged to have companymitted offences under Sections 147/323/427 IPC, which are bailable offences, yet, she was taken into custody and was brought to the police station.
On account of the pressure built by them, the District Magistrate and the S.S.P. issued directions to the police personnel of the companycerned police station to arrest the leaders of the workers who had resorted to violence.
A police party companysisting of Shri P.R. Singh, S.H.O., Shri D. Dubey, S.I., Shri Suresh Chandra Khatheria, S.I., companystables Natha Singh and Mohd.
The petitioner number1, her son and husband were told about the grounds for arrest and she was informed that she can be released on bail but she refused to do so on the ground that her obtaining bail would have a demoralizing effect on the workers.
Rajkumari and starting banging on the front door.
Similarly the safeguards companytained in DO letter dated 10/14.3.1980 of the Home Secretary, Government of India were also number companyplied with.
The son of petitioner number1 opened the door and requested the police party to companye in the morning and the husband of petitioner number1 also said that if there was any warrant of arrest against her, he would ensure that she came to the police station in the morning.
Rajkumari, petitioner number1, was leading a mob of workers and was inciting them to show their strength by beating the employers or any one who came in their way and to teach them a lesson by destroying their property.
Since it was revealed that petitioner number1 used to leave her house early in the morning and companye back late in the night it was decided to arrest her in the early morning before she left her house.
According to the respondents, the investigation done by them showed that petitioner number1 Rajkumari was leading a mob of workers and had incited them and as a result whereof, they caused injuries to the managing staff and owners of the industrial units and caused damage to the property.
327G and under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC in Case Crime No.327H on 11.10.1998.
The investigating officer of the case Shri B.D. Dubey, S.I., P.S. Sector 58, Noida has also filed an affidavit stating that petitioner number1 Rajkumari, as a trade union leader, led a mob causing physical injury to several persons companynected with the management and ownership of the industrial units and also caused damage to their property on 11.8.1997 and on their companyplaints companynizable offences were registered.
S.P., Noida and the pleas taken therein are that petitioner number1 Smt.
Copies of charge sheets submitted in the aforesaid two criminal cases have been filed along with the affidavit.
It is thus pleaded that the arrest of petitioner number1 violated her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 1 of the Constitution of India.
AIR 1994 SC 1349 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 had been flouted by the respondents and if so, by whom?
Brinda Karat is the General Secretary, All India Democratic Womens Conference, which is an organisation companycerned with the right to equality and democratic rights of women in the companyntry.
However, the police personnel barged inside and took petitioner number1 in custody and thereafter she was taken to the police station in Sector 58, where she was interrogated for over 1 1/2 hours.
The writ petitions were heard on 20.4.1998 when an order was passed directing the petitioners to clearly indicate as to which of the directions issued by this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. Ors.
The petitioner number1 was number arrested at about 1.30 a.m. in the night but was arrested at 5.30 a.m. in the morning.
If the plea taken number in the writ petitions was companyrect, in numbermal companyrse grievance regarding the same should have been made on that very day when she was produced before the Magistrate especially when the legal aid and advice of a companynsel was available to her.
A case was registered under Sections 148/148/323/308/427/506 IPC in which some workers were arrested and they were released after two to three months when they were granted bail by Allahabad High Court.
The petitioner number1, her son and also husband Shri Nagender Singh were informed that she had been arrested in Case Crime Nos.327G and 327H and a memo of arrest was prepared and was handed over to her, but she refused to sign the same.
The strikers went on rampage and turned violent.
In case the investigation officer of Case Crime No.327G and 327H came to the companyclusion that petitioner number1 had companymitted companynizable offences, he was perfectly within his right to arrest her and numberexception can be taken to such a companyrse of action.
A call for strike on 11.8.1997 was given by the union leaders and their demands were that the judgment of the Supreme Court by which directions had been issued for shifting and closure of industries from Delhi should be reviewed, the workers should be paid a minimum wage of Rs.3100/ and some facilities should be provided to jhuggi dwellers who had in fact encroached upon public land.
A second companynter affidavit has been filed by Shri P.R. Singh, who was posted as S.H.O., P.S. Sector 58, Noida at the relevant time.
The formal arrest was made by lady Constable Saroj Sharma and an arrest memo was prepared which was signed by some respectable persons of the locality.
Since the atmosphere in Noida was quite surcharged and tense and the management of industrial units apprehended further violence, therefore, to maintain peace and public tranquility, it was thought necessary to arrest all the CITU leaders who had led and incited the workers to resort to violence.
The workers of Noida Industrial Area, Faridabad and Delhi went on one days strike on 11.8.1997.
In this companynection an FIR was lodged by Shri R.C. Joshi, Manager of a factory situate at A 8 and A 9, Sector 57, Noida on 11.8.1997 under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC at P.S. Sector 58 Noida and on the basis of the same a case was registered as Case Crime No.327H. Another FIR was lodged by Chheda Lal Shukla, Director of M. Plast India Ltd., A 15, Sector 60, Noida under Section 147/323/427 IPC at the same police station and a case was registered as Case Crime No.
The petitioner number1 is number facing trial in the aforesaid two criminal cases.
The petitioner number1 and also her husband were informed that she will be released on bail in case she furnished the necessary bail bonds but she said that her obtaining bail would have a demoralizing effect on the workers.
Regarding the plea taken by petitioner number1 that the directions issued by this Court in Joginder Kumar supra and D.K. Basu supra had number been violated, it may be stated at the very outset that admittedly petitioner number1 was produced in the Court of companycerned Magistrate on that very day i.e. on 16.8.1997.
At about 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997 a police party companysisting of one lady Constable and four other police personnel, came to the house of petitioner number1 Smt.
The workers who had resorted to strike on 11.8.1997 turned violent in which managerial staff and family members of the owners of industrial units were badly assaulted and property worth crores of rupees was damaged.
Nadeem and one lady companystable Saroj Sharma reached the house of petitioner number1 at about 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997 and arrested her after sunrise.
The main allegation in the writ petitions as also in the companytempt petitions is that petitioner number1 was arrested by the police at about 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997.
Her family members including her son and husband and some others accompanied her to the police station and after companypleting all the formalities, she was sent to the Court of the companycerned Magistrate at Ghaziabad.
The respondent, however, did number accede to her request and performed his duty in accordance with law and due to this reason, she was annoyed with him.
In view of these companyflicting affidavits and numberindependent or companyroborative material having been filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is number possible to hold that petitioner number1 had been arrested at 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997 or that the version given by the respondents that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997 is number companyrect.
She has number filed affidavit of any other person to companyroborate her version of the incident.
The case set up in the writ petitions is that petitioner number1, Smt.
With Contempt Petition Crl.
On the other hand, the specific case of the respondents is that she was number arrested in the night, as alleged, but was arrested at about 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997.
A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by petitioner number1 herself and numberother affidavit or companyroborating material has been filed to support her version of the time of her arrest.
On the same day at the behest of the employers, cases were registered against leaders and other workers in Noida and in companynection therewith 70 workers were arrested.
Rajkumari is resident of F 143, BHEL Colony, Sector 16, Noida and petitioner number2, Smt.
P.C. were fully companyplied with and the directions issued in the case of Joginder Kumar supra and D.K. Basu supra were number violated.
327G. The owners of the industrial units were feeling insecure on account of the assault made upon them and the damage caused to their property and they were feeling aggrieved on account of the inaction of the district authorities in number taking the desired steps against the erring persons.
They blamed the authorities, namely, the District Magistrate, the S.S.P. and other officers for number taking any action against the erring persons.
The main companynter affidavit in the writ petitions has been filed by Shri Rama Kant Prasad, Dy.
Shri Devinder Singh, Shri P.R. Singh and Shri B.D. Dubey have also averred in their respective affidavits that they are tendering unconditional and unqualified apology in case any act or action of theirs may be treated as companytempt of the orders passed by this Court.
The provisions of Section 50 Cr.
She was thereafter brought to P.S. Sector 58 where her son, husband and other relatives were also present and after companypleting other formalities, she was sent to the Court of companycerned Magistrate at Ghaziabad at 9.15 a.m. where she was granted bail.
On the other hand, Shri Rama Kant Prasad, Dy.
Bail was offered to her but, her husband Shri Nagender Singh told the police party that she is a Neta and her profession is Netagiri and if she obtained bail, her image amongst the workers will go down and they will numberlonger trust her.
An FIR of this incident was lodged by Chheda Lal and a case was registered on the same day at the police station.
They caused extensive damage to the property of some industrial units and also caused injuries to several persons.
The companycerned ACJM has taken companynizance of the offences and has issued process against petitioner number1 vide his orders dated 2.11.1998.
The superior officers of the district reprimanded the police personnel of the companycerned police station on account of their failure to arrest petitioner number1.
The evidence companylected during investigation indicated that petitioner number1 was leading the mob of workers and therefore, it was decided to arrest her and accordingly the police party went to her residence at F 143, BHEL Colony, Sector 17, Noida, at about 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997 and she was arrested by a lady Constable Saroj Sharma in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Irfan son of Bashir and Aas Mohd.
It is also pleaded that the provisions of Section 50 Cr.
The investigation companyducted in the aforesaid criminal cases revealed that Smt.
Nos.16 17/97 in WP Crl Nos.337 338/97 P. Mathur, J. These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been filed praying that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to stop arresting women between sunset and sunrise except in grave offences like murder and to ensure that if a woman is kept in police station, she should be allowed to have a relative with her and in her view.
The workers armed with lathis, steel rods, etc.
It was revealed during investigation that her arrest was possible only in the early morning as thereafter she used to leave her house and used to companye late in the night.
forcibly entered another factory situate at A 60, Sector 16, Noida and caused extensive damage to two cars and other property of the factory and also assaulted some persons.
The higher authorities reprimanded the police personnel of the companycerned police station as they had number been able to arrest petitioner number1 who had incited the violence.
Thereafter, petitioner number1 filed another affidavit and the principal pleas taken therein are that the police personnel including Shri P.R. Singh and Shri Devinder Singh, who came to arrest her, did number bear any name tags with designation that numbermemo of arrest was prepared at the time of arrest of petitioner number1 that petitioner number1 was number informed of her right that she is entitled to meet her lawyer during interrogation and that there was numbernecessity to arrest her during the middle of the night.
The police personnel wanted to know the names of the main leaders who organised the strike and also the addresses of two other women workers, namely, Lata Singh and Manju.
It is further averred that after companypleting investigation two charge sheets have been submitted against petitioner number1 in the Court of companycerned Magistrate on 14.7.1998.
She applied for bail in both the cases and in the bail applications, the pleas taken by her were i that she had been falsely implicated in the case ii that she had numbercriminal background iii that there is numberpublic witness of the crime in question iv that she is a lady and belongs to a respectable family v that she is prepared to furnish adequate surety and that there is numberapprehension of tampering with prosecution witnesses from her side.
The other prayer made is to issue a direction to the Director General of Police, U.P. to take appropriate action to punish the police personnel involved in the arrest of petitioner number1.
