#Police Archives - Prime Legal

27 Jun

BOMBAY HC ASKS POLICE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AFTER ILLEGAL HAWKERS STOP HOMELESS SHELTER WORK IN DADAR.

Articles, Blog, Bombay High Court, News & Media links #bmc, #bombayhighcourt, #HomelessShelters, #illegalhawkes, #LokSabhaElections, #NGO, #Police, #Pratisthan, #protection, #SupremeCourt

On Tuesday the High Court of Bombay has passed an order to Shivaji Park police for allowing protection for the continuing construction of a shelter for homeless people in Dadar area has been closed by the anti social elements are the hawkers.

The intervention was required after the construction work which was carried by Shiv Sneh Samajik Pratisthan, a Non-Governmental organization was halted due to hawker assaulting the representatives of the charitable body along with labour hired by them.

The Pratisthan then filed a petition in the HC when the police at Shivaji Park declined to supply police protection. The NGO said that the protection was not given even after the civic officials had demanded to the police officials concerned.

About this, the unmistakable advocates for the NGO, Madhav V Thorat stated that the NGO chanced on a news report of the supreme court directing municipal corporations across the country to establish night shelters for homeless people and as a result, the NGO carried an independent survey and met BMC to provide a plan to build, fund & run a shelter for the homeless in Dadar free of charge.

Consequently, since the Apex Court order had made it compulsory for the BMC to establish shelters, the civic body considered the proposal from NGO & on January 15, 2024 issued work order to make the petitioner body functional under Keshavsut flyover near Flower Market, Dadar West.

However, Thorat said that they stopped the demolition work when the representatives of the NGO used labourers to go to the site, the act provoked illegal hawking merchants to abuse and even attack them. He stated that the police at the Shivaji Park police station rejection The NGO thereafter the civic officials urged the police officials to provide police protection for the event but the request amounted to nothing.

Before the Court, the police, however, took a stand that they were unable to provide police force because of the Lok Sabha elections & assured the court that the necessary police force would be deployed at the site on payment of fees for the police protection.

“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 falls 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.”

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

26 Jun

CONCERNS REGARDING THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS IN COMPLIANCE WITH BNSS, THE SOP FOR AUDIO-VIDEO RECORDING AT CRIME SCENES.

Prime Legal

Articles, Legal procedure, News & Media links #BhartiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, #CrimeInvestigation, #CrimeScenes, #DataManager, #E-Sakshya, #LegalPost, #Ministryofhomeaffairs, #NCRB, #Police, #public, #SOP

Under the new criminal procedure legislation, known as Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Ministry of Home Affairs has released a Standard of Procedure for the audio and video recording of crime scenes as suggested guidelines.

To meet their immediate need for a handholding document, field practitioners participated in extensive brainstorming sessions that resulted in the preparation of the SOP. In order to guarantee the admission of crime scene photos and videos in a court of law, it serves as a guideline for the functional and operational aspects of the field.

The technical elements, such as the contents, analysis, and photos obtained by forensic specialists, are only superficial and not thoroughly covered.

It has now been made clear that the SOP is a set of recommended guidelines that are shared for use by law enforcement and police units in states and central organizations. However, the states and central police organizations are free to expand upon this basic structure in accordance with their unique requirements and the need for special acts that are dependent on these procedural laws.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SOP:

The two parts of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) are the Standing Operating Procedure for Videography in Investigative Compliance & Seizure of Electronic and Digital Devices Found as Part of Investigation and General Police Procedures for Videography.

For the public to have faith in the police to accurately and truthfully document and preserve crime scenes, they need to be equipped with basic technology and the right training.

By abiding by the general guidelines provided, state units and central police organizations will improve the environment of evidence gathering through audio-video recording.

The investigating officer should follow a systematic procedure while entering the crime scene to ensure that no important evidence is overlooked.

Independent witnesses, who could or might not be government representatives, will be present during the search. When conducting a search, police officers may also be mentioned as witnesses if no witnesses are present. The witnesses who are also known as Panch Witnesses are required to sign the seizure memo.

Because they are admissible evidence, seizure memoranda pertaining to objects that were collected at the accused’s request should be properly drafted.

For official criminal investigation purposes, only digital cameras and audio video recorders that have been approved and provided by the department may be utilized.

There must be no breaks during the whole filming of the show. Additionally, it is mandatory for all members of the first responder or forensic teams to remain silent and refrain from talking during the videography process to prevent the defense from using it to undermine the integrity of the investigation. The same is anticipated of the in attendance witnesses.

The officer in charge of the police station must provide the following: video recordings of crime scenes, records of searches and seizures, information relevant to cases that qualify for a formal complaint (FIR), and orders on the custody and disposal of property.

Both the handler (or manager) and an expert must certify each audio-video recording made as part of procedural compliance, investigative compliance, and the seizure of pertinent digital evidence.

As required by the New Criminal Laws, the states must provide for the additional needs of police stations regarding audio-video recording. These needs include a dedicated desktop for the Evidence Specialist, Data Manager, Information Assistant, and First Responders; a vehicle specifically designed to transport digital forensic experts and first responders to the crime scene; a room specifically designated for forensic teams and first responders; and storage facilities at data centers for parallel storage.

Many central and state units have previously built an Android, iOS, or MS-based program that is backed by a web application. However, with the introduction of the New Criminal Laws, NCRB is now introducing a cloud-based audio/video recording application through “e-Sakshya” that will be integrated with CCTNS-2.0.

The eSakshya Platform integration will be mandatory for states.

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

26 Apr

This is a clear instance of day light custodial death- The High Court of Delhi expresses disappointment over negligence of police.”

Prime Legal

Blog #crime, #Custodial Death, #custody, #Police, s.302

Case Title: Setara Bibi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1224/2024

Dated: April 23, 2024

Quorum: Justice Jyoti Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case’s facts revolve around In pursuance of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner has filed this writ suit on their behalf, requesting the following reliefs.

a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of any other appropriate Writ was in effect, directing the Respondent to file a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with Sections 166, 302, 325, 331, 352, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Chief Investigating Officer, the SHO, and the other negligent police officers of Police Station Subhash Place.

In brief, the case’s facts state that the husband of Setara Bibis died while in the custody of the respondents as a result of their simple carelessness. The petitioner is the deceased person’s 22-year-old widow, who has been circling the courts in the hopes of getting justice. The FIR has not yet been filed, and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still pending.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

According to directions, Ms. Rebecca John, the Petitioner’s experienced Senior Counsel, limits the relief to requests. It is argued that the current case is related to the tragic passing of late Sheikh Sahadat on July 23, 2023, while he was purportedly in the custody of Subhash Place Police Station officers.

Additionally, it is argued that the petitioner is a 22-year-old widow of the deceased who has been circling the legal system in an attempt to obtain justice. It is requested that the magistrate’s investigation into the death of the petitioner’s husband while in custody be opened on July 23, 2023, and that it remain open to this day, almost nine months later, with no indication of when it will be concluded. However, the application made in accordance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still waiting, and the FIR has not yet been filed.

Furthermore, the petitioner is alleged to be a 22-year-old widow of the dead who has been recurrently involved in the court system in an effort to seek justice. It is requested that the inquiry into the petitioner’s husband’s death while in police custody be launched by the magistrate on July 23, 2023, and that it continue to be open now, nearly nine months later, without providing a timeline for completion.

According to an order annexed to the petition and dated December 22, 2023, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the North West District of the Rohini Courts stated that a FIR is not being filed until the Magisterial inquiry’s conclusion and the FSL report is received.

The learned Senior Counsel states that this demonstrates the State’s total insensitivity to a grave situation in which a 32-year-old man was discovered dead while allegedly under police custody, with black and blue bruise marks covering his back and chest and swellings on his hands and legs. The family of the deceased captured this on camera when they visited the mortuary where the body was being held.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 482 Cr.P.C- Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be construed as restricting or affecting the High Court’s inherent authority to issue orders as may be required to carry out any directive made pursuant to this Code, to stop misuse of the legal system, or to further further the goals of justice.
Section 166 of IPC- Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Any public servant who willfully disobeys legal instructions regarding how they should conduct themselves in that capacity with the intent to cause harm to others or knowing that it is likely that they will, will be punished with either simple imprisonment, a fine, or both. This punishment can last up to a year.
Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for murder. Anyone found guilty of murder faces a mandatory life sentence in prison or the death penalty, in addition to a fine.
Section352 of IPC- Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. Anyone found to have attacked or used unlawful force against another person without that person’s serious and unexpected provocation faces a maximum sentence of three months in prison of any kind, a maximum fine of five hundred rupees, or both.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

That court held that the following is directed that the Magisterial inquiry into the death of late Sh. Sheikh Sahadat be completed as soon as possible and no later than three months from today, taking into account the case’s facts and circumstances, the fact that the inquiry began on July 23, 2023, and is still pending, and the fact that the learned CMM is not moving forward with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because of the pendency of the inquiry.

Additionally, it was held that the learned CMM was instructed to move quickly with the matter, including giving the Director of FSL a directive to provide the report right away, in the case of a pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was requested of the Director, FSL to investigate the situation and make sure the FSL report is delivered to the relevant Court as soon as possible.

This Court expressed optimism and hopes that the concerned magistrate handling the investigation and the knowledgeable CMM handling the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will investigate the matters with the necessary seriousness, empathy, and diligence and will act quickly.

“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.”

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.

Click to view judgment.

29 Mar

A Stricter Approach is required to be taken in granting Bail to Police in Custodial Death Cases: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #accused, #Allahabad HC, #Article 136, #bail order, #Custodial Death, #exception, #Police

Case title: Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No.9816/2023

Decision on: March 12th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

The appellant before this Court is the complainant, who reported the death of his brother in police custody on 12th February, 2021. The deceased was arrested in connection with a robbery case and was taken into the police custody. The appellant accused the police officials for his brother’s death. A charge-sheet was submitted against 19 police officials, which included the allegations of commission of offences under Section 34 read with Sections 302, 330, 331, 218 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allahabad High Court, however, granted bail to one of the police constables accused of commission of the said offence. The Appellant assailed this decision of the Court before the Apex Court.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Counsel questioned the legality of the order passed by the High Court. He vehemently submitted that the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Mrs. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the said agency, also supported the appellant’s case.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Counsel submitted that his client, being a police constable, was working as a substitute driver, only as a stopgap arrangement, and had no role to play in the alleged commission of the offence on that date. He contended that the High Court granting him a bail primarily on this ground was valid.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Bench on perusal of the charge-sheet observed a certain role attributed to the respondent in the commission of the alleged offences. It rejected the argument of the respondent and noted that his role was not confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle so far as commission of the alleged offences is concerned.

The Court highlighted a peculiar circumstance of custodial death to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in order to invalidate a bail order. It observed that such offences being grave and serious in nature ought to be dealt cautiously. The Court mainly relied on the precedence in State of Jharkhand vs Sandeep Kumar to decide the case. This case dealt with an anticipatory bail granted to an accused police official. It pointed out that the offence in that case was much more serious in nature and decided to apply the same principle.

The Bench made an exception from the general rule of granting bail and adopted a stricter approach. This was primarily on two grounds which were in consonance with the principles applied in the Sandeep Kumar case. They are:

The first one is that respondent No.3 is part of the police force and the allegation is that of custodial death, in which he has been implicated. In cases of this nature, having regard to the overall influence a member of a police force may wield in connection with a case against them pertaining to custodial death, a stricter view is to be taken on the question of granting bail.
Secondly, the charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been enlarged on bail within 1 and ½ years of his detention. The alleged offence is of grave and serious nature and that factor has not been properly considered by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, in light of the above observations held that such a stricter view is required partly because a police officer may wield more influence than an ordinary person and thereby set aside the impugned order of the High Court. It directed the respondent to surrender before the CBI Court within a period of four weeks. Therefore, it clarified that these observations were purely relate to the question of grant of bail and stated that the same shall not in any way influence the trial.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

15 Feb

Delays in submitting documents proving his educational qualifications should not make him ineligible for selection for a post: Supreme court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #education, #law, #Police, #postings, #qualifications, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Shaila Tanaji Patil vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission,

Case no.: Writ Petition No.15613 Of 2022

Decided on: 14.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice A. S. Chandurkar, Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner seeks to challenge an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s filed by holding that the petitioner did not file the ‘Sports Verification Certificate’ with the respondents along with the application and thus cannot be considered for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

The petitioner claimed that she was already selected as a Police Constable under the ‘Sports Category’ based on the Certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities. This is the certificate she had verified for the position of Police Sub-Inspector, and the respondents themselves verified it. The certificate was presented at the time of the interview.

The petitioner claimed that she was already in possession of the Certificate when she applied for the position of Police Sub-Inspector, and that she was appointed as a Police Constable on the basis of this certificate prior to the examination. The petitioner contended that on a true and proper construction of the advertisement’s Clauses, it cannot be said that she did not comply with the Clauses relating to the holding of the certificate at the time of making the application.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents argued that they agreed with the Tribunal’s decision and further stated that the petition should be denied because the “Sports Verification Certificate” was not submitted with the application, indicating that the advertisement’s requirements were not met.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s OA. And, admittedly, the petitioner had already obtained the sports certificate, which was also on record with the respondents. Furthermore, the verification certificate for the sports certificate obtained was filed and submitted at the time of the interview, in accordance with the advertisement’s clauses. Thus, even on this point, the Tribunal and the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner for the position of Police Sub-Inspector.

The court relied on the case of Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, which held that if a candidate is otherwise found to be meritorious and there is a delay in filing documents in support of his educational qualification that were filed before the date of selection, such a candidate should not be considered ineligible when deciding on selection for the post.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

1 2 3