[Custodial death] Revenue Lock-up lacked even basic facilities; State needs to take time-bound remedial steps: Allahabad High Court
A man was kept in a revenue lock-up where he died seven days later. Court noted that the documents on record prima facie showed that the revenue lock-up where the deceased was kept, was not having even basic facilities/amenities required for a human being.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the prevailing situation of revenue lock-up at the Tehsil or headquarter level of district Sonbhadra, where allegedly an accused person in May this year, needs to be examined and remedial steps need to be taken by the State government within a time-bound period.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Saurabh Srivastava said that the steps need to be taken so as to provide basic amenities in such lock-ups to protect the fundamental rights of people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court was dealing with a writ petition pertaining to a custodial death case. One Neeraj Dubey filed a petition against the 'non-serious' Magisterial Inquiry into the custodial death of his father in the revenue lock-up.
As per the petitioner, pursuant to recovery certificate forwarded by the Union Bank of India, Branch-Roberstganj, District- Sonebhadra for Rs. 10,21,351.80 against his father Sudhakar Prasad Dubey, his father was arrested on May 12, 2022, by the Collector and Tehsildar of the area and was kept in the revenue lock-up-Robertsganj from May 12 till he died i.e. May 19.
The petitioner's counsel apprised the court that the petitioner submitted representations before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Headquarter) Sonebhadra, Principal Secretary (Home) Government of U.P., the Director General of Police, Lucknow and Superintendent of Police Sonebhadra, however, neither the inquiry into the matter was proceeded with nor any action was taken.
He alleged that the authorities were totally non-serious about the inquiry and in fact, they were making every effort to delay and bury the entire matter. Therefore, he prayed that a direction be issued to the Nominated Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Sonbhadra to make a fair inquiry with respect to the custodial death of the petitioner's father.
Court observed that the representations of the petitioner prima facie showed not only gross negligence and illegal acts of the respondents but also the total absence of sensitiveness to the inquiry.
Apart from that, court noted that the representations and the facts on record also showed that the revenue Lock-up at the Tehsil or Headquarter of the district where the deceased was kept, was not having even basic facilities/amenities required for a human being.
"Facts of the present case prima facie show violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. More than 3 months have passed, but the authorities from the District Level to the State Level have not shown any sensitiveness to their statutory and constitutional duties," the court observed.
Therefore, stressing that such conduct of the respondents needs to be dealt with strictly, court directed the state authorities to file a counter affidavit in which they are to also showcause in the light of the observations made in the body of the court order.
Moreover, court emphasised that the State government needs to take immediate action against the erring officers and employees so as to show bonafide of the State Government.
Case Title: Neeraj Dubey v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others