Vikas Dubey's killing raises handcuffing issue vis-a-vis SC guidelines on "inhuman" practice
New Delhi: The alleged encounter killing of dreaded gangster Vikas Dubey on Friday has kicked up dust over his hands not being apparently handcuffed by the police, against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's disapproving the practice in various orders, calling it inhuman, unreasonable, over harsh and arbitrary.
The police, on the other hand, has all along been supporting handcuffing at various judicial forums on the ground that the practice has been quite helpful in ensuring that a dreaded accused or convict does not flee the custody.
The apex court has from time to time issued a slew of directives on the procedure to be followed while handcuffing an undertrial, maintaining that the insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing.
According to police, Dubey was killed after he tried to escape from the spot in Bhauti during his transit from Ujjain to Kanpur and their car met with accident.
It said the gangster snatched a pistol from one of the policemen injured in the accident and was shot when he opened fire while trying to flee, an account being questioned by opposition parties in Uttar Pradesh.
Six policemen, including two from the Special task Force, were hurt in the accident and the exchange of fire around 6 am, an official said.
With this incident, the debate over handcuffing criminals while taking them from one place to another has ensued once again.
The apex court in 1995 held that minimal freedom of movement cannot be cut down by application of handcuffs or other hoops.
It had categorically stated that handcuffing of prisoners without judicial consent was illegal.
We clearly declare -- and it shall be obeyed from the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jailwarder -- that the rule, regarding a prisoner in transit prison house and Court house, is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have indicated earlier will be restraints with irons to be justified before or after, the apex court said.
In another case -- Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration, the top court in 1980 made important observations on he issue and said that there were other measures whereby an escort can keep safe custody of a detainee without the indignity and cruelty implicit in handcuffs or other iron In contraptions.
It said: Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first blush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring to inflict "irons" is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21.
Surely, the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonized.
The top court has observed that to prevent the escape of an undertrial is in public interest, reasonable, just and cannot, by itself be castigated.
But to bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our Constitutional culture, it said.
Referring to Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 19 (Freedoms of speech), the top court had said that when there is no compulsive need to fetter a person's limbs it is sadistic, capricious, despotic and demoralizing to humble a man by manacling him.
Such arbitrary conduct surely slaps Article 14 on the face. The animal freedom of movement, which even a detained is entitled to under Article 19, cannot be cut down cruelly by application of handcuffs or other hoops.
lt will be unreasonable so to do unless the State is able to make out that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the prisoner being so dangerous and desperate and the circumstances so hostile to safe keeping, it had said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Rishabh Pant's troubles continue as Punjab Kings push LSG towards exit door
Dharamsala, May 4 (PTI): Rishabh Pant lost the grip on his bat and the match simultaneously as Punjab Kings rode on heroics from the two 'Singhs' -- Prabhsimran and Arshdeep -- to literally push Lucknow Super Giants to the brink of elimination with a 37-run win in an IPL match here on Sunday.
It was Prabhsimran's 48-ball 91 that formed the cornerstone of Punjab Kings' unassailable 236 for 5 and any hopes of a remarkable chase was nipped in the bud by Arshdeep's (3/16 in 4 overs) now familiar Powerplay spell which summarily destroyed the opposition top-order.
This time, he got the three top run getters -- Mitchell Marsh (0), Aiden Markram (13) and the ever-dangerous Nicholas Pooran (6) -- to swing the match decisively in Punjab's favour. Ayush Badoni's (74 off 40 balls) effort was a good one albeit it came for a losing cause.
LSG were finally restricted to 199 for 7 in 20 overs and even if they win their last three games and get to 16 points from 14 games, their net run-rate can make things difficult for them.
Punjab Kings are now placed second with 15 points from 11 games and one more win could possibly clinch a place in top four for them.
But what is becoming an eyesore is LSG's Rs 27 crore worth skipper Pant's inexplicable approach which has fetched him a dismal 128 runs in 11 innings at a sub-100 strike-rate (99.22).
On the day, he scored 18 off 17 balls and that he is completely out of sync was evident in the manner he tried to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at an Azmatullah Omarzai delivery. There was no control in his shot as the bat took off on parabolic curve towards square leg and the ball went towards deep point.
Pant's misery was a testimony of LSG's wretched campaign that was lost at the auction table when the owner decided to go with a sub-standard bowling attack based on a half-fit talented pacer Mayank Yadav.
Mayank has already lost at least 10-15 yards of pace post rehabilitation under the watch of Nitin Patel at the National Cricket Academy.
On Sunday, he went for 60 runs off four overs with half a dozen of sixes struck off his bowling.
The pint-sized Prabhsimran packed a mean punch in his strokes as he blasted his way to a 48-ball 91 with the help of six fours and seven sixes.
The Punjab keeper-batter should have got his second IPL hundred but an ambitious switch hit off Digvesh Rathi saw him head back to the pavilion, nine runs short of what would have been a deserving milestone.
Towards the end, Shashank Singh scored 33 off 15 balls to take PBKS to what looked like an unassailable total. There were 16 sixes hit by Pujab Kings with 13 coming off pacers.
Prabhsimran was initially a passive partner as it was Australian Jos Inglis who launched the first attack with a hat-trick of sixes off Mayank Yadav, whose speed has decreased by at least 15 kmph post his intense rehab under Nitin Patel at the BCCI's erstwhile National Cricket Academy to recover from back injury.
However, once Inglis was dismissed, Prabhsimran, along with skipper Shreyas Iyer (45 off 25 balls), took control of the game. They were only helped by some atrocious fielding from Avesh Khan, who would probably go down as the worst fielder in the 18-year history of IPL.
Adding insult to injury, Prabhsimran took the tall MP fast bowler to the cleaners as he was pulled over mid-wicket for back-to-back maximums. Khan went for 57 in four overs and if around 15 runs due to his misfielding is added, he caused the maximum damage for his team.
The duo of Prabhsimran and Iyer added 78 runs in 7.5 overs before Rathi, LSG's best bowler on view, became the first spinner in the current season to account for Punjab Kings skipper's wicket.
But Prabhsimran continued like a man possessed and LSG bowlers were guilty of feeding to his strengths throughout the innings.
