RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The amount Bail to have been emblazed by the petitioner has been deposited by him. The original four receipts in this respect for Rs. 18,151/- have been shown to me. Out of this some money was recovered from his pay. Considering the fact that the amount has been recovered and the petitioner shall face the trial, when it comes up then he can be released on anticipatory bail.

(2.) The SHO/ Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur in F.I.R. No.418/88, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Rajendra Kumar Sharma he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction on the following conditions: (a) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (b) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or to any police officer, and (c) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Petition allowed. CONDITIONS OF CARE HOMES V. HUMAN DIGNITY By Dr. Mool Singh* The conditions of Care Homes maintained by the State are worst. Cafe Homes are, just, mini jails. Most of them are crowded hovels in which a large number of human beings have been thrown together in zoological conditions. India, being a welfare State, has a pious obligation to protect all sections of the society with special attention for the well-being of the weaker sections-the women and children. This obligation imposes an imperative duty to improve the economic conditions and social status on the basis of constitutional guarantees. The doctrine of equality, in its real sense, contemplates that special provisions be made for them by way of welfare laws. We live in a civilised age. The right to live with human dignity in its substantial meaning is the fundamental right of every citizen. The proper discharge of the responsibilities of the State towards the people recognises the need for maintaining establishments for the care of these unfortunate women and children, who are unable to march in the social parade at their own accord. Therefore, it is necessary that necessary provisions must be made for their protection, care and welfare at the instance of the State. This obligation does not make free the State merely by establishing care homes. It is incumbent upon the State to provide at least the minimum conditions ensuring human dignity. The important point for consideration here is about the Must on the part of the State to provide at least minimum conditions ensuring human dignity in the care homes established and maintained at various places for the care, welfare and we Il-being of women and children.

(3.) The Supreme Court of India, recently, witnessed this problem in a writ petition by way of a letter received from the Yuva Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti, Sasaram, District Rohtas, Bihar.1 It was alleged in the letter that the female inmates of the care home, Patna are compelled to live in inhuman conditions in an old dilapidated building. They are illtreated, provided insufficient food of poor quality and no medical care is being provided to them. The Supreme Court, on 18th November, 1987, issued notice to the Superintendent of the Home, the District Magistrate, Patna and the State of Bihar. Simultaneously the District Judge, Patna was ordered to visit the Home and submit a report on factual conditions in the context of allegation contained in the letter. The District Judge submitted the report disclosing the sorry state of affairs about insufficiency of means as well as staff supervisor, teacher or guard. He pointed out that the building in which the inmates are housed is a century old dilapidated house. It is absolutely inhabitable and unsafe. There is acute shortage of blankets and cots, There is only one toilet outside in open and not in proper working order. There was acute scarcity of water. The diet provided to them cost Rs. 5/- per day. The report discloses further that the inmates stated that they were often beaten up in case they complained before the authorities and most of them expressed a desire to be set free to earn their livelihood or to return to their families. Thirty inmates recently escaped from the care home. Twelve lunatic inmates had been transferred to the Ranchi Mental Asylum and eleven children had been sent to Bal Bhawan, Deoghar. The majority of inmates were major, five of them were being deaf and dump. There was no regular visit by any physician. The last visit of a doctor had taken place two months before. The Supreme Court observed that the State is not fulfilling its welfare functions properly. No attention is being paid to the protection of the weaker section of the society in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. It was specifically observed.2: