The Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the police regarding the circumstances and legal authority under which ten activists were detained after the police informed the Court that all of them had been released. The matter came before the Court through habeas corpus petitions alleging that the individuals had been illegally detained. The Court convened a special sitting on a Sunday to urgently hear the pleas concerning the alleged illegal detention.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the petitions and asked the police to clarify the reasons for detaining the activists and the legal basis under which such detention had taken place. The Court issued notice in the habeas corpus petitions filed by individuals seeking the production of the detainees and questioning the circumstances under which they were taken into custody.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the police informed the Court that all ten individuals who were allegedly detained had been released. However, despite the release of the activists, the Court proceeded to seek an explanation regarding the circumstances that led to their detention and the authority under law under which the police had acted.
The habeas corpus petitions were filed by different petitioners who alleged that the activists had been taken into custody by the police and their whereabouts were not disclosed for a period of time. The petitions requested the Court to direct the authorities to produce the detained individuals and explain the circumstances surrounding their detention.
During the proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of one of the petitioners that, except for one individual, all the activists had been released only after the matter was reported in the media. It was argued before the Court that the situation raised serious concerns about the conduct of the police and the manner in which the detentions had taken place.
Counsel appearing for the police stated that the matter was not as simple as it was being portrayed by the petitioners. According to the police, the individuals had already been released, and therefore the allegations needed to be considered in their proper context.
Another submission made before the Court stated that one individual named Rudra was still in custody. It was alleged that this person had been taken to a different location and had not yet been released. Counsel also alleged that the individuals who had been detained were subjected to threats and intimidation during their custody.
The petitioners further alleged that the activists had been picked up by individuals in plain clothes. It was claimed that they were not taken to a police station but were instead transported to an unmarked location described as a safe house. It was also argued that the detainees were not produced before a magistrate during the period of detention.
Counsel representing the petitioners told the Court that the activists had allegedly been subjected to abuse and violence during their detention. It was also submitted that similar incidents had allegedly taken place earlier involving some of the same individuals.
In response to these submissions, the Court directed the police to trace the individual who was alleged to still be in custody and inform the Court about his whereabouts. The bench asked the authorities to provide this information promptly.
The Court also issued notice in the petitions and directed the police to preserve the CCTV footage of relevant locations. This direction was issued to ensure that any evidence related to the events leading to the detention of the activists would remain available during the course of the proceedings.
One of the petitions was filed seeking the production of a 22-year-old woman who had allegedly gone missing after visiting the office of a student organisation in the Vijay Nagar area near Delhi University. According to the petition, she had gone to the office during the evening and subsequently became untraceable. It was stated that her phone was switched off and she could not be contacted after that time.
The petition also alleged that several other individuals present at the same office around the same time had also gone missing. The petitioner expressed apprehension that the woman might have been illegally picked up by officials associated with the police.
It was further alleged that the woman and her associates had previously been subjected to illegal detention and custodial torture by the same agency several months earlier. According to the plea, they had allegedly been kept in custody for more than a week without being formally arrested or produced before a magistrate.
After hearing the submissions made by the parties, the Court directed that notices be issued in the petitions and that the authorities respond to the allegations raised. The Court also required the police to provide details regarding the circumstances under which the activists were detained and the legal authority supporting their actions.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing, during which the Court will consider the responses filed by the police authorities and examine the issues raised in the habeas corpus petitions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.