Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday ordered the state government to pay Rs. 2 lakh compensation to the family members of an accused (allegedly falsely implicated for an offence under the NDPS Act) after finding that the state police committed certain procedural lapses while effectuating his arrest.

The court also highlighted in its order that the CCTV footage was destroyed which may have been an important piece of evidence and was put in the police station where the accused was kept at the relevant period.

 The single judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while awarding the compensation said that such compensation is “a balm on the wound” for violation of human dignity and for the failure of the police to instill confidence that the investigation was fair, impartial and a quest for the truth.

“If the State becomes a law breaker, the writ court should not hesitate to compensate for the laches and the lapses, every accused and his next of kin have a right to expect a free and fair investigation,” Justice Sarkar highlighted.

Background:

The present petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution was preferred by accused namely Vishal’s mother. The accused was booked under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act on March 10, 2022.

She approached the high court seeking enforcement of the right to personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

She claimed that on March 9, 2022, her son was picked up from a shop and was imprisoned at the police station for the entire day and was then arrested in connection with the NDPS case in the early hours of March 10, 2022.

She also stated that her son was a victim of political vendetta by the state's ruling dispensation because he had participated in the municipal elections of 2022 as an election agent for his cousin Rakesh Shukla, a candidate backed by the Indian National Congress. In her plea, she requested an independent and a court-monitored investigation into the matter as well as the seizure and preservation of CCTV footage.

The police, on the other hand, said that in February 2022, a case was filed against the accused and his companions on accusations of criminal intimidation and other offences for threatening one Ramesh Shaw with terrible consequences.

Again on March 9, 2022, the complainant told the policemen that the accused had threatened him again, so the cops went to his house to meet him. However, due to his lack of cooperation and "bad behaviour," he was arrested under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which authorises police to arrest anyone who is likely to commit a cognizable offence.

However, it was argued that the accused was released on the same day but it was denied by the petitioner upon acceptance of a bail bond as well as a PR Bond, and that both bonds were given concurrently. It was further revealed that on March 10, 2022, Vishal was properly detained with 2.5 KG of codeine combination after following due process of law.

The counsel for the state contended that because the accused could not choose the investigating agency, the petitioner's request for the appointment of an independent investigating agency for the investigation of the NDPS case should be denied.

In response to the state's allegations, the petitioner's counsel contended that the accused had been wrongfully imprisoned and had not been released from the police station on March 9, 2022, and thus could not have been present with codeine mixture on March 10, 2022, in the early morning hours.

Observations:

Justice Sarkar after hearing all the contentions requested CCTV clip of the police station for March 9 and 10, as it was accused's family's explicit contention that their son was not let out of the police station on March 9 and was immediately locked up on March 10.

The police, on the other hand, indicated that they do not have the film since the CCTV cameras were installed in stages and had a storage capacity of only one month.

Justice Sarkar emphasised that the right to life, personal liberty, and dignity provided in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution have a far broader connotation and that the right to a fair and impartial investigation is an integral component of such a right.

The court also noted that there were significant discrepancies between the method and manner in which the accused was taken into custody and the police authorities failed to carry out their duties in line with the law.

Further, the court stated that the CCTV footage, which was not available, may have shown that the accused remained in the police station until March 10, 2022, when the NDPS case was filed against him, or that he was released but later detained in connection with the NDPS case.

Furthermore, Justice Sarkar also ruled that videography of the seizure of commercial amounts of narcotics be mandatory in all cases. However, the court refused to accept the petition to transfer the investigation to an independent organisation.

Accordingly, the court directed state government to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the family members of an accused. He was also given the right to raise any and all issues at any stage of the criminal action, as well as to seek additional remedies authorised under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the appropriate courts of law.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition.

Case Title: Sunita Shukla vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Statute: NDPS Act