E.Gokulakrishnan v. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District

Advocates and a Driver were illegally detained by the respondents andprayed to set them at liberty further awarding a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/= and to take action against the erring officials.2. The case of the petitioner is that his sister Dr.Jayanthi isresiding at B-2 Government Employees Quarters, Three Storied Buildings,Ganapathy, Coimbatore and that earlier she lodged a complaint dated9.7.2008 before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore against theSecretary of the Association and his henchmen, who committed dacoity of9 sovereigns of jewels in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police,Kannian, B-9 Police Station. According to the petitioner, the saidpersons continuously tortured his sister Dr.Jayanthi along with womenfolk Viji, Kala, Papathi and Jayanthi, who is the wife of the above saidSecretary of the Association and therefore, his sister requested him tocome over to Coimbatore to sort out the issue and therefore, he went toCoimbatore on 9.7.2008 at 11.30 p.m. along with three other AdvocatesManivannan, Chinnalagu, Shankar in a Tata Safari vehicle bearingregistration No.TN-07 AS-9696, driven by one Ajmal. It is furtheraverred by the petitioner that on 11.7.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., himselfalong with his sister and brother Advocates reached the office of theCommissioner of Police, Coimbatore and met the Commissioner at about5.00 p.m. on 11.7.2008; that the Commissioner required them to meet theAssistant Commissioner Gopalasamy, who directed them to reach the spotimmediately.3. It is further submitted that at about 8.00 p.m., on 11.7.2008,the second respondent herein by name Charles, Inspector of Police, B-9Police Station, Saravampettai came to the residential quarters andenquired the sister of the petitioner and other Advocates; that theabove said Advocate and the driver Ajmal and the sister of thepetitioner were detained in the residential quarters upto 11 p.m.; thatthe Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalsamy insisted to withdraw thecomplainant to leave the place safely and thereafter, the detenusDr.Jayanthi, Manivannan-Advocate, Chinna Alagu-Advocate, Shankar-Advocate and Ajmal-Driver were taken to B-9 Police Station and they weredetained there. Thereafter, the detenues were taken to Sandeep lodgeand the detenu Dr.Jayanthi suffered giddiness and vomitting and she wastaken to a far-off place Sakthi Nursing Home about 10 km. away from theSandeep Lodge and she was treated there and on the next day, on12.7.2008, the detenus were taken to B-9 Police Station forinterrogation; that the Association Secretary and Kumaresan came toPolice Station and the detenue Dr.Jayanthi was forced to withdraw hercomplaint and on her refusal, Mr.Charles, the Inspector, continued totorture the detenus particularly Dr.Jayanthi upto 5 p.m. on 12.7.2008and thereafter, the detenus were shifted to an unknown destination andtheir whereabouts are not known.4. The petitioner would further submit that he suspects danger tothe lives of detenues and the telegram sent by him on 13.7.2008 was alsoof no use; that the Tata Safari car bearing Registration No.TN-07 AS- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9696 is in the custody of the respondent police; that the act of thesecond and third respondents in detaining the detenues beyond 24 hoursis unjust and illegal and the detenues whereabouts are not known.Therefore, he has come forward to file this H.C.P. 5. Even though subsequently, after the filing of this H.C.P., thedetenues became free birds, either on their own or after being let outby the respondents, thus making the first part of the prayerinfructuous, this matter cannot be closed or disposed on that ground,since it is alleged that the respondents have violated the fundamentalrights enshrined and guaranteed under the Constitution by resorting topolice excesses. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances, on 16.7.2008, acontemporary Bench of this Court has directed the Commissioner ofPolice, Salem, to nominate two police officials, not below the rank ofthe Inspector of Police in order to enquire as to:(i)whether Dr.Jayanthi was tortured by Mr.Charles, Inspector of Police,B-9, Saravananpettai Police Station, Coimbatore District on 11.7.2008and 12.7.2008;(ii)whether the detenues by name (1) Dr.Jayanthi, (2) Mr.Manivannan(Advocate), (3) Mr.Chinna Alagu (Advocate), (4) Mr.Shankar (Advocate)and (5) Mr.Ajmal (Driver) had stayed on their own in Sandeep Lodge andtheir behalf who booked the lodge and also the period of their stay inthe said lodge;(iii)whether rooms had been booked in Srii Aswini Deluxe, 6 & 7,Kalingarayan Street, Ramnagar, Coimbatore-641009 by one Tmt.V.Jayanthion 12.7.2007 and if so who had occupied the rooms;(iv)whether they had been detained illegally by the respondent police,more particularly, Mr.Charles, the Inspector of Police, B-9,Saravananpettai Police Station, the second respondent herein; and(v)any other particulars with reference to the above.It was directed to submit a report by 23.7.2008. Accordingly, theAssistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) North Range, Salem City, whowas nominated by the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, has submittedhis report through the Commissioner of Police, Salem City before thisCourt. which was commented as unfair and one-sided by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner and by Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, whoadvanced his arguments in the capacity of the President of Madras HighCourt Advocates Association. 7. A perusal of this report would show that the Police Officialsnominated by the Commissioner of Police, Salem, have not enquired andrecorded the statements of the victims, even after their release, as has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thespecific allegation of the petitioners is that the detenus were takeninto illegal custody on 11.7.2008 and their whereabouts were not knowntill 14.7.2008. Rarely in cases of police excesses, direct occularevidence of the complicity of the Police personnel would be available.Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can onlyexplain the circumstances in which a person was taken into custody. Inthe case on hand, though pursuant to the direction of this Court, areport has been filed by the two police officials nominated by thePolice Commissioner, Coimbatore, the report filed by them was found tobe not true. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is notunknown that the Police personnel try to prevent the truth to save theircolleagues. 8. Considering the fact that the report submitted by the policeofficials nominated by the Commissioner of Police, Salem, consisting ofone Assistant Commissioner of Police could not be trusted, this Court,by the order dated 23.7.2008, has appointed The Honourable Mr.JusticeMalai Subramanian, a retired Judge of this Court, to enquire into thefollowing issues, which were also indicated to the team consisting ofthe two police officials, and to submit a report:9. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the learned Judge, TheHonourable Mr.Justice Malai Subramanian, has enquired into the matter on10.8.2008 and 11.8.2008 at Circuit House, Coimbatore wherein on behalfof the petitioner, Mr.E.Gokulakrishnan, the petitioner in the HCP;Dr.Jayanthi, Mr.Shankar, Advocate, Mr.M.Baranikumar, Advocate,Mr.A.Manivanna, Advocate, Mr.P.Chinna Alagu, Advocate, Mr.S.Ajmal, CarDriver were examined by Mr.Shankara Subbu, Advocate and on the side ofthe respondents, the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Kannaiyan, Mrs.Srikala,Mrs.Mahalakshmi, Mr.Kumaresan, Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Mrs.Sheela,Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Mr.Senthilkumar, Mr.D.Murugadoss, Mr.A.Karthikeyan,Doctor Selvaraj, Doctor Rathinasamy, Mr.Charles Inspector of Police wereexamined by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who also deposed as awitness. 10. The learned Judge, in his report, has summed up his findings,as could be seen from Page No.19 of his report, which read as follows:"To sum up, there is no evidence of torture to eitherDr.Jayanthi or the Advocates and the driver at any point oftime; the presence of Inspector of Police and the AssistantCommissioner of Police at the residential quarters was only tomake enquiry and to pacify the residents and to retrieve thedetenues from the enraged mob and hence it cannot be said thatthe detenues were illegally detained at the residentialquarters. The contention in the affidavit that after 5 p.m.On 12.7.2008, the detenues were shifted to an unknowndestination has been given a goby (sic. go-bye) by thedetenues themselves since they uniformly stated that they were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kept in Sandeep Lodge till 4 p.m. on 14.7.2008, which fact hasbeen disproved by documentary evidence as discussed supra.The only proved circumstances are that they were staying inthe lodge under police surveillance on the night of 11.7.2008which may amount to detention and that they were kept at thepolice station from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 12.7.2008 for enquirywhile their Advocate Mr.Baranikumar was not allowed entry bythe constables and the other parties also came to the policestation for enquiry."11. In the case on hand, the firm allegation of Dr.Jayanthi is thatthe Association Secretary Mr.Narasiman, has demanded a sum of Rs.2,500/=as contribution for the Association and since she refused to pay themoney, he threatened her with dire consequences and on 7.7.2008, withthe help of some police officials, water connection was disrupted to herhouse, by blocking the nasal and she removed the block, whereupon therewas a wordy quarrel between the parties and complaints have been lodgedbefore the Police. 12. From the conjoint reading of all the complaints lodged beforethe Police, it is clear that since the detenue Dr.Jayanthi has refusedto pay the amount of Rs.2,500/=, towards contribution for theAssociation, the Association Secretary Mr.Narasiman and others haveresorted to the illegal method of disconnecting the basic amenities likewater. 13. According to Hindu mythology, 'Panchabhutams' – air, water,earth, sky and fire - are the creations of Lord Almighty and nobody canclaim exclusive rights over the same, unless the law of the land permitssuch rights. No such exclusive rights are created insofar as water isconcerned. With the advent of the Constitution, supply of water,including potable water, to the citizens has become one of the sovereignfunctions of the State. In the judgment pronounced on 6.2.2009 by theDivision Bench of the Honourable Apex Court, consisting of His LordshipsThe Honourable Mr.Justice Altamas Kabir and The Honourable Mr.JusticeMarkandey Katju, regarding the Vamsadhara river water dispute betweenAndhra Pradesh and Orissa, it has been held that right to water is theright to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. TheAssociation Secretary, joining hands with his henchmen, has illegallyand without any authority disconnected and disrupted water supply to theresidence of the first detenue Dr.Jayanthi, for the simple reason thatshe refused to contribute the amount towards association, fee thusigniting the controversy. Since the Association Secretary and hishenchmen have resorted to such coercive and illegal measures forcollection of the association fee from the first detenue Dr.Jayanthi,the respondents, being the custodians of law, should have resolved thedispute in accordance with law, which dispute seems to have beenerupted, purposely, by the Association Secretary and his henchmen, whoare liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law for this offencecommitted by them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. The Scheme of Cr.P.C. is that an officer in-charge of a PoliceStation has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on comingto know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion ofinvestigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has toform an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be andforward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2)Cr.P.C. The duty of the Police – the investigating of the State – is toact in accordance with the law of the land. The right of the police toinvestigate into a cognizable offence is statutory right over which theCourt does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. Thisplenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is,however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well-recognisedlimitations. A just balance between the fundamental rights of thecitizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansivepower of the Police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struckby the Court. The sweeping power of investigation does not warrantsubjecting a citizen to torture or cruelty. 15. Therefore, on receipts of the complaints, the Police areexpected to follow the above mentioned procedure under Cr.P.C., whichthey are bound by. Since the issue involved is trivial and could besolved by counselling/mediation between the parties, instead ofprecipitating the things, the respondents 2 and 3 should have tried toresolve the dispute between the parties by counselling/mediation.Instead, under the name of 'enquiry', the respondents 2 and 3 have madethe detenues the scape-goats and as has been pointed out by the learnedEnquiry Judge, all the detenues were detained illegally on the night of11.7.2008 and that they were kept at the police station from 9 a.m. to5.00 p.m. on 12.7.2008, which, definitely, amounts to their illegaldetention.16. In the FIR in Cr.No.559/2008 registered against Dr.Jayanthi,her mother, her brother and others, it has been mentioned that theinformation was received at the Police Station on 12.7.2008 at 19.00hours. When it has been proved beyond doubt that for the incidentalleged to have taken place on 7.7.2008, the respondents 2 and 3 havetaken custody of the detenues on the night of 11.7.2008 itself and keptthem under illegal custody the whole night, making the detenues to stayin a lodge by force that too under police surveillance, an incorrect andutterly false information has been noted in the FIR, as if theinformation was received at the Police Station only on 12.7.2008 at19.00 hours. Further, from this FIR it is also seen that thecomplainant therein K.Srikala has lodged the complaint on 9.7.2008 at16.00 hours itself, and the Inspector T.Charles, has registered thecase, only after conducting an 'enquiry'. If it is so, how can he showthe information received at Police Station as 12.7.2008 at 19.00 hours?Does the 'enquiry' meant by him on the complaint lodged by thecomplainant therein on 9.7.2008 at 16.00 hours itself, is what this casedepicts i.e. the police excesses and the illegal detention of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detenus?17. An adding factor is that Cr.No.559/2008 has been registered asagainst Dr.Jayanthi and others on the complaint lodged by one K.Srikalafor the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. In this casethough the incidence is alleged to have taken place on 7.7.2008, thecomplaint was registered on 12.7.2008 at 19.00 hours. Likewise,Cr.No.560/2008 was registered on the complaint lodged by one Ganesan forthe offences under Sections 279 and 506(ii) IPC, for the incidentalleged to have taken place on 11.7.2008 at 8.30 p.m. But, thecomplaint lodged by Dr.Jayanthi as against Kumaresan and others has beenregistered as Cr.No.561/2008 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 380 IPC (Non Professional). Even to the naked eye and from thehandwriting and the ink used therefor, it is established that all theseFIRs are registered and recorded successively. To cover up the mistake,different timings of reporting before the Police Station have beenartificially attributed and noted with a view to mislead the legalforums, while scrutinising the documents. 18. As has already been pointed supra, the FIRs. inCr.Nos.559/2008, 560/2008 and 561/2008 are registered on the same dayi.e. on 12.7.2008, while FIR.No.559/2008 has been registered based onthe complaint lodged on 9.7.2008, the other two FIRs. are registered onthe complaints lodged on 11.7.2008. The other aspect to be pointed outis that while it is seen that the detenu Jeyanthi has lodged thecomplaint on 11.7.2008 at 22.00 hours, the other complaint inCr.No.560/2008 was lodged only at 23.30 hours. However, the complaintreceived at 23.30 hours was registered as Cr.No.560/2008 and thecomplaint lodged by Dr.Jayanthi at 22.00 hours was registered asCr.No.561/2008 by the Inspector Charles. No explanation whatsoever iscoming forth for this violation of mandatory principles of law,discussed supra. This undoubtedly establishes that the respondents 2and 3 are acting indifferently towards detenu Jayanthi, for no legallysustainable reason whatsoever to be offered on their part. 19. The scrutiny of the entire materials placed on record wouldshow that the detenues were in illegal detention from the night of11.7.2008 and they were kept at the police station from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.on 12.7.2008. It is more pathetic to note, even from the report of thelearned Judge, that the Advocate Mr.Baranikumar was not allowed entry bythe Constables. Had it been only the 'enquiry' and nothing else, as hasbeen submitted on the part of the respondents, the respondents 2 and 3would not have restricted the entry of Mr.Baranikumar into the policeStation, who came to assist and help the detenus. From the nature ofthe complaint made, we are unable to accept the defence advanced on thepart of the respondents that the detenues were kept at the policestation from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 12.7.2008 for 'enquiry'. For such anincident reported, what enquiry does the respondents 2 and 3 areconducting for such long hours, that too denying access of the detenuesto another Advocate Mr.Baranikumar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. It may be true that Dr.Jayanthi herself signed the register inthe Lodge, but that does not mean that she did it voluntarily, withoutany force. Had they stayed voluntarily in the Lodge, then why shouldthey live under the 'surveillance' of Police? If at all their presenceis required for any 'enquiry', they need not have to be kept under'surveillance' by the Police. Instead, they should have been requiredby the Police to attend the so-called 'enquiry' next day morning,particularly when it is not the case of 'surveillance' so far as theaccused in the complaint lodged by Dr.Jayanthi. This establishes theindifferent treatment meted out to the detenus by the respondent Policeand a leaning attitude towards the opposite party, which is unwanted andunbecoming on the part of the respondents 2 and 3.21. Surveillance will infringe the fundamental right to personalliberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom ofmovement guaranteed by Art.19(1)(d). At this juncture, we feel it aptto quote a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in MALAK SINGH ETC. vs.STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS [AIR 1981 SC 760], wherein it hasbeen held:"Section 23 of the Police Act prescribes it as the dutyof police officers 'to collect and communicate intelligenceaffecting the public peace, to prevent the commission ofoffences and public nuisances'. In connection with theseduties it will be necessary to keep discreet surveillance overreputed bad characters, habitual offenders and other potentialoffenders. Organised crime cannot be successfully foughtwithout close watch of suspects. But surveillance may beintrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of acitizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personalliberty guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution and thefreedom of movement guaranteed by Art.19(1)(d). That cannotbe permitted. So long as surveillance is for the purpose ofpreventing crime and is confined to the limits prescribed byRule 23.7 of the Punjab Police Rules a person whose name isincluded in the surveillance register cannot have a genuinecause for complaint. History sheets and surveillanceregisters have to be and are confidential documents. Neitherthe person whose name is entered in the register nor any othermember of the public can have access to the surveillanceregister. The nature and character of the function involvedin the making of an entry in the surveillance register is soutterly administrative and non-judicial, that it is difficultto conceive of the application of the rule of audi alterampartem. Such enquiry as may be made has necessarily to beconfidential and it necessarily excludes the application ofthat principle. It would be contrary to the public interestto reveal the information in the history sheet particularlythe source of information. However, surveillance of personswho do not fall within the categories mentioned in Rule 23.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Punjab Police Rules or for reasons unconnected with theprevention of crime, or excessive surveillance falling beyondthe limits prescribed by the rules, will entitle a citizen tothe Court's protection which the court will not hesitate togive. Surveillance, therefore, has to be unobstrusive andwithin bounds. While it may not be necessary to supply thegrounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered inthe surveillance register it may become necessary in somecases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged thatthere are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief." 22. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the respondents thatthe detenus are the history sheet holders or the habitual offenders, soas to justify their action in keeping them under 'surveillance'. Whensuch is the condition and when, in the terms of the above judgment ofthe Honourable Apex Court, the surveillance will seriously encroach onthe privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right topersonal liberty guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution and thefreedom of movement guaranteed by Art.19(1)(d), the illegal action ofthe respondents 2 and 3 in keeping the detenus under 'surveillance',that too making them to stay in a Lodge, has to be viewed seriously,since it has affected the personal liberty and freedom of movementguaranteed by the Constitution. If, otherwise, the respondents feltthe need to arrest the detenues, they should have done so and producedthem before the Magistrate for remand after registering the case.Instead, the respondents 2 and 3 have acted in a high-handed manner andkept the detenues under illegal custody from 11.7.2008, for which noexplanation, much less a satisfactory one, is coming forth from therespondents. 23. When the detenue Dr.Jayanthi has refused to pay Rs.2,500/=towards Association fee, the Secretary of the Association by nameNarsiman joining hands with others, has disconnected the waterconnection to the house of the detenue Dr.Jayanthi in the presence ofpolice personnel. Since the basic amenity of water has beendisconnected, the detenue herself has opened the nasal, whereupon theSecretary and his henchmen picked up quarrel with the detenue, leadingto lodging of complaints. When there is clear evidence to establish thatthe Association Secretary has made demand of Association Fee, whichcannot be a compulsory one, had there been proper enquiry andinvestigation by the respondents 2 and 3, they would have immediatelyresolved the dispute between the warring parties. Instead, they haveproceeded against the detenue, as if she has committed a sin by lodgingthe complaint, in exercise of her legal right and made her to stay inthe Lodge under the police surveillance and not only the detenueDr.Jayanthi, but the other detenus who rushed to her rescue, were alsokept under illegal custody, as has been observed by the learned EnquiryJudge and as is crystal clear from the materials placed on record. Whenall the detenus were in illegal detention and custody of the respondents2 and 3, the entry of a fellow Advocate Mr.Baranikumar was denied. None https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the procedures mandated under Cr.P.C. Regarding registration ofcomplaint and investigation thereon, as has been discussed supra, havebeen followed by the respondents 2 and 3. All such acts wantonly doneby respondents 2 and 3 have infringed the right to life and right toprotection of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution. At each and every stage, we found the scant regardfor the established principles of law by the respondents 2 and 3.24. In JOGINDER KUMAR vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [1994 SCC (Cri)1172], the petitioner/a young advocate of 28 years was called by theSSP, Ghaziabad, U.P., in his office for making enquiries in some case.It was alleged that on 7.1.1994 at about 10 o" clock, he personallyalong with his brothers appeared before the SSP. At about 12.55 p.m.,the brother of the petitioner sent a telegram to the Chief Minister ofU.P. apprehending the petitioner's false implication in some criminalcase and his death in fake encounter. In the evening it came to beknown that the petitioner was detained in the illegal custody ofSHO/respondent No.5 therein. Next day, the SHO, instead of producingthe petitioner before a Magistrate, asked the relatives to approach theSSP. On 9.1.1994 in the evening, the relatives of the petitioner cameto know that the petitioner had been taken to some undiscloseddestination. Under these circumstances the writ petition under Article32 was preferred for release of the petitioner and the Supreme Court on11.1.1994 ordered notice to the State of U.P. as well as SSP, Ghaziabad.The SSP along with the petitioner appeared before the Court on 14.1.1994and stated that the petitioner was not in detention at all and that hishelp was taken for detecting some cases relating to abduction and thepetitioner was helpful in cooperating with the police and therefore,there was no question of detaining him. In such circumstances, a ThreeJudge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows:"Though at this stage the relief in habeas corpus petitioncannot be granted, yet the Supreme Court cannot put an end tothe writ petition on this score. Where was the need to detainthe petitioner for five days, if really the petitioner was notin detention, why was not the Court informed. If really, therewas a detention for five days, for what reason was he detained?These matters require to be enquired into. Therefore, DistrictJudge, Ghaziabad is directed to make a detailed enquiry andsubmit his report within four weeks from the date of receipt ofthis order."It has further been held as follows:"The quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely measuredby the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. Thehorizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, thecrime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receivingcomplaints about violation of human rights because ofindiscriminate arrests. A realistic approach should be made inthis direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand,and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on theother; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties andprivileges of the single individual and those of individualscollectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where toput the weight and the emphasis, of deciding which comes first– the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider.""No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the policeofficer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is onething. The justification for the exercise of it is quiteanother. The police officer must be able to justify the arrestapart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in policelock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to thereputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be madein a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of anoffence made against a person. It would be prudent for apolice officer in the interest of protection of theconstitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his owninterest that no arrest should be made without a reasonablesatisfaction reached after some investigation as to thegenuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonablebelief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to theneed to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is aserious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commissionmerely reflect the constitutional concomitants of thefundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person isnot liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity inan offence. There must be some reasonable justification in theopinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest isnecessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrestmust be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person toattend the Station House and not to leave the station withoutpermission would do.""The right of the arrested person to have someone informed,upon request and to consult privately with a lawyer wasrecognised by Section 56(1) of the Police and CriminalEvidence Act, 1984 in England. These rights are inherent inArticles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require to berecognised and scrupulously protected. For effectiveenforcement of these fundamental rights, the followingrequirements are issued:1.An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if heso requests to have one friend, relative or other person who isknown to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare toldas far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where heis being detained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The police officer shall inform the arrested person when heis brought to the police station of this right.3.An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to whowas informed of the arrest. These protections from power mustbe held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforcedstrictly.It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom thearrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that theserequirements have been complied with."25. The facts in the case on hand are similar to the one in theabove case before the Honourable Supreme Court. From the materialsplaced on record it is clear that all the detenus were kept in a Lodgeunder the Police Surveillance on the night of 11.7.2008 and they werekept at the police station from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 12.7.2008 andwhen the detenus were in illegal custody of the respondents 2 and 3,they were denied assistance from Mr.Baranikumar, Advocate. Theguidelines enunciated by the Honourable Apex Court in the abovejudgment, were given a simple go-bye by the respondents 2 and 3, furtherflouting and violating the right to protection against arrest anddetention in certain cases guaranteed under Article 22(1) of theConstitution. 26. Custodians of law cannot act like destroyers of law and inspite of repeated observations by various forums of law, including theHonourable Apex Court, often the violations of fundamental rights bythe Police themselves are being reported, which should be viewedseriously. Right to life enshrined and guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution cannot be permitted to be plucked away from thecitizens of this great country by anybody. At this juncture, we feel itapt to quote the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in BHIM SINGH vs.STATE OF J&k [AIR 1986 S.C. 494], wherein the Honourable Apex Court hasobserved as follows:"Police Officers who are the custodians of law and ordershould have the greatest respect for the personal liberty ofcitizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to bizarreacts of lawlessness."27. Police excesses tarnishes the image of any civilised nation andencourages the men in 'khaki' to consider themselves to be above the lawand sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measuresare taken to check the same, the foundations of the criminal justicedelivery system would be shaken and the civilization itself would riskthe consequence of heading towards perishing.28. The right of personal liberty of a citizen is all too preciousand no one can be permitted to interfere with it except in accordancewith the procedure established by law. Whenever a question is raisedregarding the illegal detention of a citizen in a writ of habeas corpus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the court issues the rule nisi, a duty is cast on the State, throughits functionaries and particularly those who are arrayed as respondentsto the writ petition, to satisfy the court that the detention of thecitizen was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatoryrequirements of the law but also with the requirements implicit inArticle 22(5) of the Constitution of India. No such requirements areproved before us by the respondents. 29. Fundamental rights are the means and Directive Principles areessential ends in a welfare State. The evolution of the State frompolice State to a welfare State is the ultimate measure and acceptedstandard of democratic society which is an avowed constitutionalmandate. Though one of the main functions of the democratic Governmentis to safeguard liberty of the individual unless its exercise is subjectto social control, it becomes anti-social or undermines the security ofthe State. The Indian democracy wedded to rule of law aims not only toprotect the fundamental rights of its citizens but also to establish anegalitarian social order. The individual has to grow within the socialconfines preventing his unsocial or unbridled growth which could be doneby reconciling individual liberty with social control. Liberty must becontrolled in the interest of the society but the social interest mustnever be overbearing to justify total deprivation of individual liberty.30. Whenever the Police resort to such excesses, particularlyagainst the Robed community-the Advocates, to protest such excesses,they are resorting to boycotting the Courts, which, on the other handcosts the interests of the litigant public. 31. The police excesses alleged and proved in this case areshocking our conscious. Considering all the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in the light of our above discussion, we have no hesitationto hold that the respondents 2 and 3 have acted in a high-handed andpartisan manner and under the name and garb of the so-called 'enquiry',which they have resorted to even without registering the complaints,thus flouting the mandatory requirements of Cr.P.C., they havehumiliated the detenus, besides detaining them illegally. If notchecked and punished, such excesses on the part of the law implementingauthorities, will shake the confidence of the people about the the lawand its machinery.32. To sum up:1.There is an illegal demand of Association Fee by theSecretary from the first detenue Dr.Jayanthi and on herrefusal, disconnection of the water connection to herresidence, resulting in wordy quarrel between the partiesand complaints and counter complaints between the parties.The respondents 2 and 3, being the responsible policeofficials, should have acted in a fair and unbiased manner toresolve the dispute between the parties in a free and fair https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ manner. Instead, without even registering the case on thecomplaints, they have taken sides and made the detenus tostay in a Lodge on 11.7.2008 under their 'surveillance', forno reason, thus infringing their fundamental right topersonal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 and the freedom ofmovement guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.2.The Association Secretary has no legal right to demandamounts that too by coercive methods and the action of theAssociation Secretary and his henchmen in disconnecting thewater supply, one of the 'Panchabhutams' and on which nobodycan claim any exclusive right and since the right to water isthe right to life, traceable to Article 21 of theConstitution, the Association Secretary and his henchmen, whohave illegally disrupted water supply to the residence of thefirst detenue Dr.Jayanthi, are liable to be prosecuted, inaccordance with law, for this offence committed by them. 3.The respondents 2 and 3 have kept the detenus under illegaldetention from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 12.7.2008 under thegarb of 'enquiry' and denied their access to Mr.Baranikumar,a practising Advocate who has rushed to the rescue of thedetenues.4.At each and every stage, we are able to see that therespondents 2 and 3 have flouted and given a simple go-bye tothe procedure established under the Criminal Procedure Coderegarding registration of a case and its investigationthereafter and have flouted the guidelines issued by theHonourable Apex Court in Joginder Kumar case (supra).5.The first detenue Dr.Jayanthi is an Educationist and thedetenus 2 to 4 viz. Manivannan, Chinna Alagu, and Shankar arepractising Advocates, while the 5th detenu Ajmal is theDriver. Because of their illegal detention by therespondents 2 and 3, the reputation of the detenus in theSociety is very badly affected and their image is tarnishedby the respondents 2 and 3, for no better reason to beoffered and appreciated on their part. In the result,(a) This Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed.(b)The State of Tamil Nadu, on which the vicarious liability iscast upon for the deeds and misdeeds committed by therespondents 2 and 3, is directed to deposit a sum ofRs.4,50,000/= (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) before thelearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, within fourweeks from today, towards compensation to the detenus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) Dr.Jayanthi, wife of Thirunavukarasu; (2) Manivannan,Advocate; (3) Chinna Alagu, Advocate; (4) Shankar, Advocate and(5) Ajmal, Driver. The Secretary to the Government of TamilNadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai is directed totake all steps to deposit the compensation amount within theabove period specified, without any delay.(c) On such deposit being made, the detenus (1) Dr.Jayanthi,wife of Thirunavukarasu; (2) Manivannan, Advocate; (3) ChinnaAlagu, Advocate; (4) Shankar, Advocate are entitled to acompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh each) andthe detenu Ajmal, Driver is entitled to the compensation ofRs.50,000/= (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).(d) On such deposit being made, all the detenues can withdrawthe amounts from the said Court, by providing sufficient proofin support of their identity. For this purpose, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners is directed to furnish all theparticulars, such as the full name of the detenues with theirfather/husband's name, address and identity proof so as toenable the above said Court to identify the detenues anddisburse the amounts, without any confusion.(e) The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, HomeDepartment, Fort St.George, Chennai and the Director General ofPolice, Tamil Nadu, Chennai are directed to initiate necessarydisciplinary proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3, fortheir proved acts of illegally detaining the detenus infringingtheir fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitutionwithin four weeks from today and report compliance to thisCourt.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarRaoTo1.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore District.2.The Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravananpettai, Coimbatore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Singanallur, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.4.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.5. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Coimbatore.7. The Principle District Judge,Coimbatore.8. The Section Officer,Crl.Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC to Mr.P.Balamurugan,Advocate,SR.5333 H.C.P.No.1006 of 2008RL(CO)EM/13.2.09