The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently issued contempt of court notice to eleven police officials of Basohli police station at Kathua including the sub-divisional police officer and the station house officer for alleged illegal arrest and custodial torture of two labourers from Punjab [Sukar Deen & Anr. vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.].
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi was hearing a petition which alleged that the actions by the police amounted to gross violation of Supreme Court guidelines laid down in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which govern lawful arrest and custodial safeguards.
According to the plea, the petitioners were illegally detained at 12.30 am on June 30 in clear violation of binding Supreme Court guidelines.
The contempt petition was filed by Sukar Deen and Farid Mohammad, residents of Pathankot in Punjab, who were allegedly picked up after midnight on June 30.
The police were patrolling the Atal Setu area to prevent illegal fishing in Ranjit Sagar Dam, an activity banned annually from June 15 to August 15. The petitioners were working for a licensed contractor and claimed they were outside Jammu and Kashmir jurisdiction when the incident occurred.
According to the pleadings and supported medical reports, the petitioners were brutally assaulted on-site and then further tortured in custody, suffering severe injuries including broken toes, bite marks, bruises and avulsed fingernails.
Photographs and multiple medical examination reports from both Basohli Hospital and Pathankot Civil Hospital corroborated the allegations of third-degree torture.
The petitioners contended that no memo of arrest was prepared, grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of detention, and no checklist under Section 41 CrPC was furnished to the Magistrate, making the entire process arbitrary and unlawful.
The petitioners, represented by advocates SS Ahmed and Rahul Raina, further alleged that they were brutally tortured in custody even though no arrest was warranted under law.
The Court, after hearing the petitioners’ counsel, issued notice to the respondents, returnable in three weeks.
It listed the matter for further hearing on September 3. Bar and Bench
