Handcuffing, A Judicial Tap, and the Long Arm of the Law

Suprit Ishwar Divate vs The State of Karnataka: High Court held that an accused, in normal circumstances, need not be handcuffed on arrest.
Handcuffs can only be used under exceptional circumstances such as the possibility of escape and/or the possibility of causing harm to himself or others.
Further, if handcuffs are used, the arresting officer must write the reasons, are subjected to judicial/court scrutiny.
There are only three occasions when a person can be (legally) handcuffed, i.e., an accused on his arrest and before he is produced before the magistrate; an under-trial prisoner during transit from jail to the court and back; and a convict being transported from jail to the court and back.
Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration: ‘the only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons — an extreme measure — is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape’.

Irrespective of whether the person to be handcuffed is an accused or an under-trial prisoner or a convict, the principles governing handcuffing remain the same.
However, a person under the judicial custody of the court, requires the court’s permission for handcuffing except under emergent circumstances.
It has been established that monetary compensation for an ‘established infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, which is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizens.’
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report (Ministry of Home Affairs) on ‘Crime in India- 2020’ shows that 810 cases of prisoner escape from police custody (against 931) were reported in the year 2020.
No less than 117 cases were registered against negligent police officers as well.

Source The Hindu

For more updates, Click Here

Important Links