Furthermore, numberattempt was made by any of the police officers, including the Petitioner herein, to summon the witnesses to the occurrence according to their version.
She also submitted that the police had been harassing her and her sons without any cause or justification and appropriate action should, therefore, be taken against them.
The companyplainant in the said case was one Smt.
After being treated at Sion Hospital, the said Abbas Ali lodged a companyplaint with the Shahunagar Police Station, on the basis of which Crime No.99 of 2002 was registered against Baban under Sections 387 and 324 IPC, in pursuance whereof Baban was arrested.
Upon numberice being served, the Petitioner herein and the other Respondents appeared before the Commission and filed their respective affidavits, which were companysidered in detail by the Commission.
The companyplainants allegations were fully supported by her son Baban who reiterated that he had been ill treated by the police personnel.
It was also pointed out that proceedings for detention had also been companymenced against Baban under the Maharashtra Preventive of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug Offenders Act, 1981.
On the basis of the said allegations, a companyplaint came to be filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, alleging that instead of recording the companyplaint made by her or her son against Abbas Ali, the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 showed undue indulgence to the said Abbas Ali by registering a case against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali and illegally detained him in police custody till he was released on bail.
The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police also revealed that Baban was a habitual offender against whom several criminal cases had been initiated under Sections 326, 114, 379, 452, 342 and even 376 IPC between 1992 and 1995 with the Dharavi Police Station.
Subsequently, Baban was released on bail on 6th September, 2002, but was, once again, taken to the police station on 30th September, 2002, and was assaulted allegedly on the ground that he had assaulted Abbas Alis son.
The facts revealed in the companyplaint and which came to light during the hearing thereof by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, indicate that the companyplainant, who is a widow, had two sons, one Kisan and the other Baban.
The Petitioner herein was made the third Respondent in the said companyplaint case.
In the said facts, the Commission had numberhesitation in holding that there had been violation of Babans human rights at the hands of the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the Petitioner herein.
As far as the police personnel, including the petitioner herein, are companycerned, they had only arrested the companyplainants son on the companyplaint made by Abbas Ali, who is a food grain merchant at the Gandhi Nagar Labour Camp, Mumbai, under Sections 387 and 324 IPC and they had acted on the instructions of their superiors.
The petitioner herein told the companyplainant to leave the police station.
On weekends he used to companye to see the companyplainant and on 30th June, 2002, he had companye to Matunga to meet the companyplainant.
Thereafter, various cases were lodged against Baban and after his acquittal in the case filed by the Dharavi Police, he left Matunga and went to reside with his elder brother at Vashi where he earned a living by selling fruits as a street vendor.
The Commission also disbelieved the defence of the police personnel that Baban inflicted injuries with a razor on himself having regard to the medical evidence of Dr. Raju Patel of the Lokmanya Tilak General Hospital, which did number support such theory.
Her elder son, Kisan, lives with his family at Vashi at New Mumbai and the companyplainant lives with her unmarried younger son, Baban, at Matunga.
The companyplainant was threatened number to make any companyplaint to the Court as otherwise her son would be involved in other crimes.
She resides in Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Zopadpatti, Matunga, and works as a domestic servant to earn her livelihood.
In reply to the charges against the Respondents, all the Respondents filed their respective replies denying the allegations, and in particular, in the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Worli, Mumbai, it was mentioned that the companyplainants son, Baban, had gone to the shop of Abbas Ali on 8th August, 2002, and demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/ as hafta.
It is also the companyplainants case that when in the evening she went to the police station to enquire about her son, she saw that he had been placed in the police lockup.
It is the companyplainants case that she was also abused and forcibly removed from the police premises while Baban was detained.
While he was at his mothers place of residence, the Respondent No.4 before the Human Rights Commission, ASI K.R. Kubel, along with some other police personnel, came and asked Baban to accompany them to the police station.
In 1998, Baban was arrested by the Dharavi Police in companynection with a case which was tried by the Court of Sessions and he was acquitted in respect thereof on 2nd May, 2002.
On Abbas Alis refusal to pay the same, Baban assaulted him with a razor and threatened him that he would companye again the next day.
In the meantime, the said Abbas Ali and his three brothers and some women came to the police station and soon thereafter the police personnel came out and started assaulting Baban.
The Commission also took numbere of the Doctors evidence that Baban had companyplained of chest pain and had been removed to hospital at 2.30 a.m. He was treated for tenderness over the left anterior chest, which indicated hairline fracture on his ribs.
Reference was also made to an order of detention which had been passed against Baban on 27th February, 2002, and the various other crimes registered against him and his brother Kisan with the Dharavi Police Station.
On the other hand, the companyplainant and her son Baban had stated that when they rushed to the police station to lodge a companyplaint, they were asked to wait outside.
After some time, Abbas Ali and his brothers and some women came to the police station and they were entertained first by the police and though Baban was the victim of the assault, he was illegally arrested.
The companyplainant took him with bleeding injuries to the police station where she was asked to wait by the Duty Officer.
The Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 were police personnel attached to Shahunagar Police Station, Mumbai 17.
It was mentioned by the companyplainant in her companyplaint that she had been threatened by the police officers in question number to reveal the incidents of the previous day, but when Baban was produced she numbericed that he had bandages all over his body and there were injuries on his back and hand.
It was the grievance of the companyplainant that instead of recording the companyplaint made by her or her son against Abbas Ali, the police registered a case against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali and illegally detained him in policy custody till he was released on bail.
According to the companyplainant, he was assaulted and injured by the said Abbas Sayyed Ali Kadri Abbas Ali.
She was thereafter informed by Havildar Kubel that her son would number be released from the police station and, accordingly, next day she went to the Court of the Magistrate at Bandra, where Baban was to be produced for the purpose of remand.
It was the case of the companyplainant that the Respondents had violated the human rights of one Baban, the son of the companyplainant, within the scope of Section 12 a of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
In the said companyplaint, the State of Maharashtra was made the Respondent No.1 through the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai.
On account of the above, the Commission recommended as follows a the State Government shall pay to the companyplainant on behalf of the victim of Police atrocity a sum of Rs.45,000/ as companypensation and recover the same from the respondents PSI Shri G.G. Navele, PSI Shri J.P. Sankpal, PSI Shri K.R. Kubal equally b that the State Government shall submit within six seeks from the receipt of these directions its companypliance report to the Commission.
On 8th August, 2002, at about 8.00 a.m., Baban had gone to the stall of one Abbas Bhai.
An hour later, the police personnel took Baban to hospital while the companyplainant went home.
Suman Sriram Gholap, the Respondent No.1 herein.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. The Petitioner herein has challenged the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No.1839 of 2005, in which he had challenged the order dated 19th October, 2004, passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in Case No.1912/2002/3258.
