2010 (5) TMI 941 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Non-Bailable Warrant for Police Assault

The High Court upheld the trial Court's decision to issue a non-bailable warrant against accused police personnel for alleged assault, emphasizing the ... Non-bailable warrant - Article 21 - deprivation of personal liberty following procedure established by law - discretion of trial court in issuing summons, bailable or non-bailable warrant - status of accused as police personnel as relevant consideration in warrant/bail decision - failure of executive/police to execute judicial warrants and institutional protection of personnelNon-bailable warrant - Article 21 - deprivation of personal liberty following procedure established by law - discretion of trial court in issuing summons, bailable or non-bailable warrant - status of accused as police personnel as relevant consideration in warrant/bail decision - Validity of the trial court's issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and whether such issuance violated their Article 21 rights - HELD THAT: - Liberty under Article 21 is not absolute and may be deprived provided the procedure established by law is followed. Issuance of a non-bailable warrant is a recognised procedure under the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, after examining the complaint, the protest petition and witnesses, found that offences of grave nature were disclosed and recorded that the petitioners, being police personnel, had allegedly dragged and brutally assaulted the complainant's son within police precincts. The status of the accused as police personnel, who are ordinarily expected to uphold the law, is a relevant consideration in assessing the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for strong judicial measures. Given the factual matrix and the allegation that the executive (police) had filed a negative final report to protect its own members, the trial Court was justified in exercising its discretion to issue non-bailable warrants at the first instance. The Supreme Court authority cited by the petitioners was considered distinguishable on facts because it did not involve accused who were police personnel. The delay in execution of the warrants by the police and the apparent protection of personnel by the executive is deplorable, but such execution failure does not render the warrant itself illegal or perverse. There is no demonstrable illegality or perversity in the trial Court's order warranting interference.The trial Court's order issuing non-bailable warrants is upheld and the petition is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The High Court finds no perversity or illegality in the trial Court's issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners (police personnel); the exercise of discretion was justified by the gravity of allegations and the accused's status, and the petition is dismissed. Issues involved: Aggrieved by the issuance of warrant of arrest and dismissal of application u/s 70(2) of Cr.P.C.Summary:The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the warrant of arrest issued by the trial Court and the dismissal of their application to convert it into a bailable warrant. The case involved allegations of assault under various sections of the IPC. The trial Court, considering the gravity of the offence and the status of the accused who were police personnel, issued a warrant of arrest. The petitioners contended that their liberty was compromised, citing violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Public Prosecutor argued that as upholders of the law, the accused police personnel's actions warranted a serious view. The High Court, after considering the arguments and case law, upheld the trial Court's decision to issue a non-bailable warrant, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law and restoring faith in the state authority.The High Court emphasized that while liberty is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be deprived following due process. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant is a legal procedure under Cr.P.C. The Court justified the trial Court's decision based on the seriousness of the allegations against the police personnel and the need to maintain public trust in law enforcement. The delay in executing the warrant was noted, indicating a failure of the Police Department to uphold accountability. The Court distinguished a previous case involving different offences and non-police personnel, highlighting the unique circumstances of this case where law enforcers were accused of violating the law.In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality in the trial Court's order and dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the warrant of arrest issued against the accused police personnel.