INDRARAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

(2.) THE accused petitioners, 7 in numbers have been facing trial for offence under Sections 326 and 307 IPC etc. in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1, Jhunjhunu one Kugal Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Lines, Jhunjhunu submitted an application dated 16. 4. 04 before the Trial Court stating therein two accused persons absconded from police custody when they were brought to the court on the date fixed i. e. , 14. 4. 2004 and prayed that to prevent incidents of absconding, permission be granted to handcuff all the accused persons. THE learned trial Judge granted permission on the application (Annex. 4) to handcuff the accused petitioners without assigning any reason. Again, on 26. 4. 04, one Vinod Kumar Head Constable, Guard Incharge Challani, Jhunjhunu submitted an application before the Trial Court alleging that the accused are involved in heinous crime and are notorious and they always remain in search of an occasion to abscond from police guard. In these circumstances, direction to fetter the accused petitioners was prayed for. THE learned Trial Court passed order on 26. 4. 2004 on the application (Annex. 6), itself, thereby granting permission to fetter the accused petitioners, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Under the above orders, the petitioners are forced to remain handcuffed and fettered, not only while they are produced before the court but in jail also, which resulted in creating sever problems in discharge of their routine functions. THE petitioners repeatedly made requests to the jail authorities to remove handcuffs and other fetters, but of no avail. However, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21. 5. 2004 modified its earlier orders to the effect that handcuffs and other fetters should not be used while accused take bath, attend the call of nature and at the time of sleeping.

(3.) IN the case at hand, it appears from the record that petitioners are being handcuffed and fettered routinely and merely for the convenience of custodian or escort. Otherwise, the State and/or the jail authorities have not produced any material before the Trial Court to show that no other reasonable way of forbidding escape was available, the petitioners being so dangerous and desparate and the circumstances so hostile to safe keeping. IN my considered view, merely because a person is charged with grave or serious offences, the inference of escape proneness or desperate character does not follow and therefore, on that premise alone the prisoner cannot be handcuffed and fettered. For the reasons therefor, if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would amount to abuse of process of law and would cause injustice to the petitioners.