SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to a man who was arrested and kept in ‘illegal detention’ despite the high court’s interim order staying his arrest.
In the order dated May 29, the court further directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the concerned station house officer (SHO) for “dereliction in the due discharge of official duty, violation of the order passed by this Court and commission of an act of indiscipline”.
A bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by Anil Soni.
According to the petitioner, an FIR under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceit) and other sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was lodged against him at Itwa police station of Siddharthnagar district by a woman with whom he allegedly had a love affair for the past two years.
Earlier, he had moved the high court challenging the FIR.
On April 1, during a hearing in this case, another division bench passed an interim order specifically staying his arrest in connection with the FIR. Although this order was uploaded to the high court’s website on April 6, he was arrested on April 4 by the concerned SHO.
In the habeas corpus plea, the petitioner submitted that his brother had prepared a notarised affidavit on the day of the arrest to inform the SHO of the high court’s interim order.
Even his counsel contacted the SHO, but petitioner was arrested.
During the hearing, the government counsel justified the arrest contending that the SHO was bound to take the action on account of non-production of the interim order staying the arrest.
The bench, however rejected the state’s justification noting that the interim order was passed in the presence of the government counsel and the counsel for the informant. Hence, the bench noted that all the respondents were fully aware of the order.
The bench took into account that even after filing the present plea, on which replies were sought from the respondents, the petitioner was not released from jail.
Taking strong exception to the facts in the case, the bench expressed concern over what it termed an “unfortunate trend”.
The bench observed, “We have noted that this unfortunate trend is given the momentum. Learned counsel for the state do either not intimate the orders passed by this Court to police authorities as a result of which the authorities do not comply the order passed by this Court, or the police authorities are disrespectful towards the Court orders and they act in mala fide manner.”
The court while fixing July 13 as the next date of hearing directed the concerned superintendent of police to file a compliance affidavit regarding payment of compensation to the petitioner, as well as an intimation on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the SHO.
SOURCE : SIASAT
