A case in Crime No.
It is stated that even after the pronouncement of the judgment, the police once again abused them, made obscene gestures, beat and took them to the penitentiary handcuffed.
In companynection with the second case, petitioner No.
It seems that the petitioners when questioned refused to tender apology or repent for their companyduct but tried to justify their action of having staged the dharna for a legitimate cause.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Hoshanga bad has filed a separate companynter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition.
1989 they were number released from the jail but companytinued to be detained on the allegation that they were wanted in two more cases, namely, in Case No.
The fourth petitioner was arrested in companynection with the peaceful dharna on 25.11.1987 before the office of the Block Education Officer, Kesala and put behind the bars.
66, who was incharge of the escort party has sworn to an affidavit stating that the petitioners 1 and 2 were taken to the jail on being handed over by the Court after their companyviction and they took them to the prison by handcuffing them under a bona fide belief that the situation might become worse.
The Counter affidavit is filed by one R.K. Shivhare, the then SHO Police , Itarsi, Hoshangabad District on behalf of the respondents giving a detailed version about the incident leading to the registration of various cases and justifying the companyduct of the police officials in handcuffing the petitioners.
569/88 against the two petitioners and others under Section 353, 148 and 149, IPC.
59 of 1989 setting aside the companyviction of the petitioners recorded by the Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Section 186 IPC, and acquitting the petition ers of the said offence.
The appellants say that they should number have been handcuffed but the guards had numberother instruction to the companytrary in this regard.
1989 in companynection with some other false case.
It seems that a Sub Inspector of CID made an enquiry on a petition regarding the handcuffing of petitioners 1 and 2 and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police.
However, he denies allegations of torture, obscene gestures etc.
One other supporting affidavit is also filed by a companystable of the escort party.
He also cites paragraph 465 1 of the M.P. Police Regulation in support of his action of putting the petitioners 1 to 3 under shackles.
According to the petitioner, they all were working for the welfare of the weaker sections and down trodden people in a peaceful manner but they were inhumanly treated against all numberms of decency by the police in utter disregard of the repeated and companysistent mandates of this Court and in utter violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Head Constable No.
34 IPC was registered against the petitioners on 25.11.87 by Kesala police.
470/88 and it came to an end on 11.7.89 when the petitioners were released on probation.
Even after the two petitioners have been sent to jail in pursuance of their companyviction for the offence under Section 186 IPC, a number of incorrect numberhings were made in the records of the companyrts as if both the petitioners were pro duced from jail.
In villages of Morpani and Madikhoh of Hoshan gabad District there was only one school teacher employed in the Morpani school.
He cites Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation para No.
86/87 was registered as criminal case No.
Raj Narain was taken to jail on 21st April, 1989 and was brought in the Court on 22nd April 1989 under hand cuffs from the jail itself to Court lock up and then taken under handcuffs in the Court itself in the presence of the Magistrate.
The Assistant District Inspector of Schools gave an assurance in writing stating that he would make enquiries and initiate action in this regard.
The Court proceedings disclosed that the Magistrate issued bailable warrants as against the petition ers 1 and 2 and companytinued the same by issuing repeated orders of bailable warrants in a very mechanical and casual manner and without application of mind from 26.5.
Therefore on 27/28.7.1988, the petitioners 1 to 3 along with a large number of tribal women and children staged a peaceful dharna in front of the office of Block Education Officer, Kesala demanding appointment of two regular teachers in the schools located in tribal hamlets.
But to the petitioners dismay, the local police initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3 and one old Adivasi widow aged about 65 years who was number paid her wages by the said teacher, for an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC on the allegations that the petitioners and the Adivasi woman have obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions.
It is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 were avoiding warrants of arrest in Crime Nos.
470/88 which ended in companyviction and the petitioners were released on probation on 11.7.
It seems that a number of cases were registered against the petition ers 1 and 2 and both of them did number avail bail and they were in prison.
There after, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
52/88 under Section 186 and 447 was registered on 28.7.
The Magistrate companyvicted the petitioners 1 to 3 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month while acquitting the woman.
Though the petitioners were released on probation in criminal case No.
470 of 1988 registered under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC pending in the .Court of 1st Class Magistrate, Hoshangabad and another in a case registered as Criminal Case No.
Alongwith this affidavit, he has filed Annex ures I to VI.
2821 24 of 1989.
Inspite of several company plaints lodged against the teacher, the authorities did number pay any attention in this regard.
87/87 was registered as criminal case No.
From the writ petition, companynter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit, we are able to gather certain facts, they being A case in Crime No.
Though numberes of the case diary, companyies of which are filed before us, are number very clear as to the reasons of repeated issue of warrants yet we find that these petitioners were under remand in both the cases namely criminal case Nos.
3 and 4.
On 11.8.1989, the case was adjourned to 21.8.
A warrant was said to have been issued against the second petitioner directing him to appear before the Magistrate on 8.5.
1987 itself.
470/88 and 569/88.
A companyy of the police report dated nil and without dis closing the author of the same is filed stating that while first and second petitioners were taken to the prison on their companyviction, they turned violent number only inside the Court but also outside the Court and they were taken to the orison with the help of other members of the police force.
569/89 till he was released under the orders of this Court.
80/87 under Sections 147, 341 was registered against the petitioners along with some others on 11.12.
34 was registered against the petitioners on 25.11.
282 1 24 of 1989 in the above writ petitions for im pleading the Superintendent, District Jail and the 1st class Magistrate, Hoshangabad as additional respondents and to treat the additional facts as part of the main writ peti tions.
There were 8 accused in that case inclusive of these two petitioners who were arrayed as accused Nos.
1987 by Kesala police which case was tried as case No.
1988 to 17.2.1989.
In companynection with the said criminal proceeding, the petitioners were arrested, abused, beaten and taken to the Court of 1st Class Judicial Magis trate, Hoshangabad by handcuffing them.
Even after the expiry of the sentence, the Magistrate had number cared to proceed with the case and to know as to why petitioners 1 and 2 were languishing in jail.
This companyviction has been set aside by the appel late Court.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal Nos.
277 80 of 1989.
In this companynection, we would like to dispose of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
1989 the petitioner No.
58/88 on the file of the Judicial Magis trate 1st Class, Hoshangabad which ultimately ended in companyviction.
However, on 1.8.1989 the first petitioner was released on his personal bond as per the orders of this Court.
The relevant portion of the report reads as follows And the Court called the police guard and as per Courts direction the three accused were handcuffed and kept in the lock up, later on the Court again called all the three accused persons to the Court where Purushottam Nayak was released on bail It was found on enquiry that the appellants Sunil and Rajnarayan were sentenced to one month imprisonment each under Section 186 IPC in the Court of Shri Chand Soria and police guards under the order of the honourable companyrt handcuffed the appellants in the companyrt itself and lodged them in jail.
This case went on for several adjournments on the ground that one or other accused was either number produced before the Court or number appeared on the hearing date.
This case was tried in criminal case No.
A case in Crime No.
86/87 and 87/87.
A rejoinder is filed by the first petitioner reiterating his earlier stand and annexing certain newspaper clippings and some other docu ments inclusive of the companyy of the judgment of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad made in Criminal Appeal No.
The said Sangathan is actively working against all kinds of exploitation purported against the local farmers and tribal people in the district of Hoshangabad.
87/87 under Section 34 1 read with Sec.
3, Puru shottam Nayak was also remanded but later on released on bail on 26.4.1989.
The additional facts are as follows The petitioners 1 and 2, namely, Sunil Gupta and Raj Narain though have served their one month imprisonment from 22.4.1989 to 21.5.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
He justifies the action of the police stating that the petitioners on pronouncement of their companyviction, got agitated, turned violent and shouted slogans inside the Court which necessitated the escort police to handcuff the petitioners.
A case in Crime No.
1989 for further proceedings.
569/89.
470/88 yet on 11.7.
The case in crime No.
With regard to the reasons assigned by the police, Sunil Gupta in his additional affidavit has stated thus This act is incorrect, firstly neither myself number Raj Narain did shout any slogan in the Court though I was hand cuffed in the Court itself but the handcuffing was number done with the companysent of the Magistrate number it was done under his direction.
N. Bachhawat, Uma Nath Singh and N.N. Johri for the Respondents.
1989 to 1.8.
The teacher was number attending the school for the last one and half years.
465 1 as per which if the escort in charge feels the necessity of handcuffing persons, he is empowered to do so.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Two important questions arising for companysideration in the above matter are Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 have been illegally detained from 21.5.
B. Mehrotra for the Petitioners.
1, namely, Sunil Gupta was in jail in case No.
The salient and material facts as set out in the Writ Petitions are as follows The petitioners are social workers and Members of Kisan Adivasi Sangathan, Kerala.
