MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 6. 1. 06 whereby the Sessions Judge Bharatpur, has rejected his application under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (henceforth to be referred to as the Code) for transferring his case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur to any other Court in his Division.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Hanumant Singh lodged a report at Police Station Nadabi, District Bharatpur on 31. 3. 2005 at 9. 25 A. M. about an incident that had taken place on 30. 3. 2005 at his daughter-in-law's house. In the said report he had alleged that his daughter, Asha, was married to Jitendra Singh on 31. 5. 2001. He further claimed that although he had given sufficient dowry in accordance with his means, but but his daughter was constantly tortured by her husband and by her in- laws for lack of the dowry. THEy would demand that not only Rs. 1 lac should be paid to them, but also a Maruti Car should be given to them. He further claimed that they threatened to kill his daughter. THEy carried out their threat on 31. 3. 2005 when they killed his daughter. On the basis of said report, a former FIR, FIR No. 129/2005, was registered for offence under Sections 304 & 34 IPC and the investigation commenced. After a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498a, 304b, 306, 34 IPC against the husband, the mother- in-law and the father-in-law. During the course of the trial, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur, the accused persons would be brought to the Court in handcuffs. THE accused persons had moved an application requesting that they should not be brought by the police in handcuffs as it adversely affects their social standing. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge had warned the Guard Incharge not to do so. Even after the warning given by the learned Court, the police continued to bring the accused persons in handcuffs. But despite their protest, the learned Court did not pay any heed to their protest. Subsequently, the accused persons also moved an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code' ). But the said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the petitioner and the other co-accused moved an application for transfer of the case on the ground that the learned Court was biased against them. However, the said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) IT has further observed as under:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" Even in cases where, in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so. Otherwise under Art. 21 the procedure will be unfair and bad in law. Nor will mere recording the reasons do, as that can be a mechanical process mindlessly made. The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in Court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval. Otherwise, there is no control over possible arbitrariness in applying handcuffs and fetters. The minions of the police establishment must make good their security recipes by getting judicial approval. And, once the Court directs that handcuffs shall be off no escorting authority can over-rule judicial direction. This is implicit in Art. 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the very procedure which authorizes stringent deprivation of life and liberty. "