In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court addressed a significant issue concerning inter-state police operations, specifically focusing on the protocols that must be adhered to during such activities. The case in question involved the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Police arresting a Delhi resident within the capital's jurisdiction without prior notification to the Delhi Police, raising concerns about the legality and procedural correctness of such actions.
The matter was brought before a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma. The bench was responding to a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the arrested individual. The petitioner contended that the UP Police had apprehended the man from Connaught Place in Delhi without informing the local authorities and subsequently transported him to an undisclosed location. This action not only violated established legal protocols but also left the individual's whereabouts unknown for a concerning period.
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel highlighted several alarming aspects of the arrest. It was alleged that the detainee was subjected to physical assault and mistreatment during the arrest, and a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was conducted to document his injuries. These allegations underscored the urgency and gravity of the situation, prompting the court to seek comprehensive details about the arrest and the treatment meted out to the detainee.
In response to the court's inquiries, the counsel representing the UP Police acknowledged that an FIR had been registered against the individual at the Beta II police station in Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. It was further stated that the arrested person had been produced before the trial court, which had reserved its decision regarding his bail application. Notably, the police remand was not extended, leading to the individual's release. However, the manner in which the arrest was conducted remained a contentious issue.
The Delhi High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the procedures followed during the arrest. The bench emphasized that no prior information had been provided to the Delhi Police, a mandatory requirement for inter-state operations to ensure coordination and uphold the detainee's rights. The court referenced a 2019 division bench judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. State, which explicitly mandates that inter-state arrests must adhere to a defined protocol. The apparent deviation from this established procedure in the current case prompted the court to question the legality of the arrest.
To address these concerns, the court directed the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, to provide a detailed response regarding the protocols followed during the arrest. The court sought clarity on several critical points:
Identification of Arresting Officers: The court demanded the names and designations of the police personnel involved in the arrest to ascertain accountability.
Details of the Vehicle Used: Information about the vehicle employed during the arrest was requested, especially since reports indicated the use of private, unmarked vehicles, which raises questions about the transparency and legitimacy of the operation.
Medical Examination Findings: The court sought the medical report, including X-ray results, to verify claims of physical assault and to assess the detainee's health post-arrest.
Furthermore, the court instructed the Delhi Police to examine available CCTV footage to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the arrest. This directive aims to provide an objective account of the events and determine whether the UP Police's actions were justified and lawful.
This case underscores the imperative need for law enforcement agencies to adhere strictly to legal protocols, especially during inter-state operations. Such adherence ensures the protection of individual rights and maintains the integrity of the justice system. The Delhi High Court's proactive stance serves as a reminder that deviations from established legal procedures will be scrutinized to uphold the rule of law and prevent potential misuse of authority.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.