Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an accused who was allegedly tortured in police custody seeking protection of life and liberty and setting aside his arrest, a Single Judge Bench of Kirti Singh, J., noted that there were allegations of gross misconduct of the acting officials and opined that it required a detailed response qua the actual chain of events and qua the alleged custodial torture that the accused was subjected to. The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (‘SSP’) to submit a response in this regard.
Background
Allegedly, on the evening of the incident, the accused was forcefully abducted by unknown officials and illegally detained at the Police Station, where he was subjected to custodial torture and even given electric shocks. A video of the accused in nude condition was also prepared and circulated. The next day, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 296, 74, 308(2), 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’).
The Trial Court, in its zimni order, stated that the medical examination of the accused on the date of arrest was silent regarding any injuries of the accused which were visible to the naked eye. Moreover, the Court stated that sufficient police remand had been obtained by the police, yet the investigation was not complete. Noting this, the Court held that there was no ground for further police remand and rejected the request for the same. The Court also directed the police to get the injuries of the accused medically examined. The police were also directed to apply for the constitution of the medical board by the Civil Hospital.
Allegedly, the accused was not taken for his examination as ordered but taken back to the police station, where he was allegedly threatened with dire consequences for himself and his family in case, he chose to undergo a medical examination. The accused was then taken to the Civil Hospital, where he was allegedly forced to refuse the medical examination. He was also allegedly not given a copy of the arrest memo and FIR, and neither was he informed of the grounds of his arrest.
Aggrieved, the accused filed the present petition.
Analysis
The Court noted that the present case involved allegations of gross misconduct of the acting officials and opined that it required a detailed response qua the actual chain of events and qua the alleged custodial torture that the accused was subjected to.
The Court directed the SSP to do what was required and submit a proper and non-partisan response via an affidavit. Further, given the serious allegations as they prima facie appeared, the Court asked the Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (‘PGIMER’), Chandigarh, to constitute a Medical Board to thoroughly examine the accused for any bodily injuries stated to be inflicted on his person and submit a report by the next date of hearing.
Further, the Superintendent of District Jail was directed to ensure that the accused was produced before the Medical Board constituted by PGIMER, Chandigarh.
[Rohani v. State of Punjab, Citation No. of 2024, decided on 22-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Bharat Bhandari, Vinay Yadav, Amandeep Singh, and Sushil K. Bhardwaj
For the respondent: Davinder Bir Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab
Buy Constitution of India HERE
