ALZAZ RIJVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, whereby the learned Magistrate has permitted the police to bring the accused to the Court under handcuffs and has also allowed the application moved by the police.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner happens to be a practicing advocate at Bundi. In case, the petitioner were brought in handcuffs, it would cause unnecessary embarrassment to the petitioner. Secondly, in the application filed by the police, the police merely states that six cases were registered against the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has already been acquitted in three cases. Therefore, the police did not bring the correct facts to the notice of the Court. Thirdly, the police had also claimed that there is a likelihood that the petitioner may run away while being escorted to the Court. However, there is no cogent evidence which proves that petitioner would run away from lawful authority. Thus, it had sought permission to bring the petitioner under handcuffs. Lastly, no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Magistrate although he should have been heard prior to passing of the impugned order. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Citizen for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and others, AIR 1996 SC 2193 .

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer, who has repeatedly violated the law. Even if, he has been acquitted in three criminal cases, the fact remains that still three cases are pending against the petitioner. Secondly, certain "freedom at the joints " has to be given to the police. Therefore, in case the police were of the opinion that the petitioner is likely to run away from the police custody while he is being transported to the Court to stand trial, the police must be given a liberty to bring the accused under handcuffs to the Court. After all, it is the duty of the police to see that the accused is safely produced before the Court. Therefore, the security of the accused is its concern. Thirdly, neither the law, nor precedent requires that the accused be heard prior to the Court permitting the police to handcuff the accused person. The principles of natural justice cannot be read in such a situation. It is, in fact, a matter strictly between the Court and the police and the accused does not have a locus standi.