UP Court Orders Action Against Cops Who Allegedly Subjected Accused To Custodial Violence, Had Him Bitten By Dog

Terming the alleged acts of violence to be "a very serious matter", Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amir Sohail directed the Senior Superintendent of police, Bareilly, to get the case properly investigated and take necessary action against the erring police officials and to inform the court about the action taken against them.

The Court also directed that an inquiry be conducted against a doctor of the District Hospital who examined the accused medically and allegedly prepared a misleading and false medical report, hiding the injuries of the accused.

The court also directed the District Magistrate, Bareilly, to ensure at his level that no violence of any kind is committed against the 4 accused during their judicial custody.

The court passed these directions while dealing with a remand application concerning the accused (Bilal, Sohail, Rahmuddin and Asif) booked under Sections 109, 352, 3 (5) BNS and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Essentially, before the Court, an application was submitted on behalf of the accused Bilal stating that the police officers who arrested him had injured him while in custody, specifically on his thumb, the wrists of both hands, and his back, using a belt and a lathi.

He also alleged that the police made a dog bite him in two places on the side of his waist. His counsel also claimed that injuries were present on various parts of his body, all allegedly caused by the police and submitted that the doctor who conducted the medical examination ignored these injuries in his report.

Similarly, three other accused also alleged that they had been beaten by the police. They showed injuries on their bodies to the Court and alleged they had been kept at the police line continuously since the day of their arrest.

Taking into account the allegations levelled against the police officials, and the visible injuries, particularly those of accused Bilal, who had clear marks of animal bites on his waist, the Court concluded that there were obvious signs of violence committed while the accused were in police custody.

ACJM also observed that the accused had been beaten up and injured, but the doctor who conducted the medical examination failed to report these injuries.

Regarding the animal bite marks on the body of accused-Bilal, the Court called it the most inhumane of all the injuries, noting that the wounds appeared to have been caused by an animal, likely a dog.

Calling the case a "very serious" one, the Court held that there was a violation of the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [1997] and Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1994] concerning custodial violence.

Furthermore, the Court termed the incident a "live example" of custodial violence and deemed it necessary to get the roles of the arresting officer, the investigating officer, and the doctor who conducted the medical examination, be investigated so that action could be taken against them.

Accordingly, while passing the above-mentioned directions for appropriate inquiry, the Court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, and the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow.

Lastly, the Court remanded the accused to judicial custody until 16 June.