Blog

According to the Calcutta High Court, the allegation of custodial torture against one accused in a different case cannot ipso facto raise a presumption in the Court’s mind that custodial torture is also being meted out to the petitioner. This is why the court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus at the petitioner’s request.

In the case of HafijaLaskar v. The State of West Bengal and others (W.P.A.(H) No.32 of 2022), the Honourable Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Honourable Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee on the bench further stated that it would not be wise to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is a prerogative writ, at the petitioner’s request because there is a specific

Facts of the case:

The petitioner has been in detention since 2008, but subsequent cases have been filed against him, the petitioner’s attorney informed the bench. The Bench was also informed that one of the suspects in a different case, connected to which the petitioner was also detained, had been subjected to torture while in custody. Therefore, it is assumed that the petitioner may also be a victim of torture while in custody.

Additionally, it was observed that there is no issue with the petitioner’s illegal detention because he was already in jail at the time he attempted to flee. Additionally, it was noted that it is obvious that the trial court ordered the petitioner to be returned to police custody, which disproves the claim that he or she was taken into custody unlawfully.

Instead, the State’s attorney claimed that the petitioner escaped while being transported to the police remand facility as instructed by the relevant Court.

Court’s Findings:

According to the opposing arguments, the Court determined that there is no evidence on file to support the suspicion that the petitioner is being subjected to torture while in custody and held, ” “We discover no evidence of custodial torture against the petitioner in the materials on file, and there is no basis for a suspicion of it. In fact, the court cannot automatically assume that the petitioner was subjected to custodial abuse just because another person in jail who was the subject of the claimed abuse (a close cousin of the petitioner named Md. Ali @ Subrata Byne) was the accused in a different case.”

Additionally, it was observed that there is no issue with the petitioner’s illegal detention because he was already in jail at the time he attempted to flee. Additionally, it was noted that it is obvious that the trial court ordered the petitioner to be returned to police custody, which disproves the claim that he or she was taken into custody unlawfully. As a result, the plea was rejected.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Judgement Reviewed By Manju Molakalapalli.

Click Here To View Judgement