Top UPSC Coaching

19 Jul 2022 Legal provision for handcuffing

Posted at 09:44h in Daily current-affairs by khyati khare 0 Comments

0 Likes

Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in ‘Suprit Ishwar Devet v State of Karnataka’ has given liberty to the State to recover an amount of two lakh rupees from a convicted police officer as compensation for handcuffing an accused without recording reasons in the police case diary given to the government.

According to the Karnataka High Court, handcuffs can be used only in ‘extreme circumstances’, for example where there is a apprehension of the accused/undertrial prisoner escaping from custody or causing self-harm or harm to others.
Also, the arresting officer is required to record the reasons for handcuffing, which are to be produced in the court during the judicial inquiry.

On the arrest of the accused and before his production before a Magistrate
While transporting an Undertrail Prisoner from prison to court and back
While taking a convicted person from jail to court and back.
With regard to handcuffs, the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration case (1980) held that handcuffs can be used in the only circumstance when there is no other reasonable option available to prevent the accused from escaping.
Also, if an arrest or convict can be prevented from escaping by increasing the security, then in such a situation increasing his security instead of handcuffing is an ideal option.

The Court may, after questioning the arrested person, accept or deny the reasons for handcuffing.
The principles of handcuffing the accused or undertrials or criminals remain the same in all cases. However, if a person is in judicial custody, the permission of the court is required to be handcuffed except in exceptional circumstances.
In State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil case (1991), the Bombay High Court held the Inspector of Police responsible for the violation of Article 21 and ordered payment of compensation.
However, the Supreme Court did not hold the police officer personally liable as he had acted in the capacity of his official.
Also, the Supreme Court amended the order and directed the state (not the police inspector) to pay the compensation.
Thus, the decision of the Karnataka High Court does not appear to be in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Strict departmental action is necessary against the officer in case of any animosity regarding handcuffing.
Reasons for handcuffing must be mentioned in the case diary.
Instead of ordering payment of compensation, it is more appropriate to initiate disciplinary action against the erring officer under the Service Conduct Rules.
Review of police activities, requirement of additional manpower and technical equipment from time to time by the State Governments.