Karnataka HC: Accused, arrested, & undertrial prisoners can only be handcuffed in extreme situations

Krishnapriya Sreekumar
Jul 1, 2022
5 min read

Updated: Jul 4, 2022

"If there is a violation by the Arresting officer in putting handcuffs on the petitioner, the petitioner would be eligible for compensation."

Image Credits: Google Images

The Karnataka High Court recently held that no individuals, whether accused, undertrial prisoner, or convict shall be handcuffed except in extreme situations after recording the reason for the same in the case diary. These extreme circumstances include, where there is a possibility of the accused/undertrial prisoner/convict escaping from custody, causing harm to themselves, or causing harm to others, among others.

The single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj referred to Sections 46 and 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Sections 831, 832, 834, and 835 of the Karnataka Police Manual along with various High Court and Apex Court decisions before making the said observations.

Relevant facts of the case:

Writ Petition filed by a law student, Suprit Ishwar Divate seeking compensation of INR 25 Lakhs citing loss of reputation, illegal detention, and illegal handcuffing in connection with a bailable offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881.
Petitioner was arrested in C.C No. 533/2019 in furtherance of a non-bailable warrant.
Petitioner claims that he was paraded with handcuffs in town and taken on a bus [handcuffed] to the police station. The incident was alleged to be video recorded and a compact disc in relation thereto was produced before the Court.
The police failed to record the reason for handcuffing the petitioner in the present case.
Petitioner sought bail but was rejected - subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
Petitioner convicted by IInd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class. The conviction order was subsequently stayed by the 7th Additional District and Sessions Court upon appeal challenging the same.
Petitioner claimed that despite the stay, the respondents illegally arrested and detained the petitioner at Ankali Police Station and also continuously threatened him.
Petitioner claims damage to reputation and violation of fundamental rights owing to an abuse of the respondents' official capacity and position.

Issues before the Court

Whether the accused, who is arrested, can be handcuffed? If so, under what circumstances?
If there is any violation by the Arresting Officer, would the accused be eligible for compensation?
On what basis is the compensation required to be determined and paid?

Observations and Findings of the Court

The Court examined all arguments and evidence produced before it, before observing:

"The said video does not in any manner establish the parading of the petitioner and/or the petitioner being handcuffed in the public presence so as to cause any injury as such to the reputation of the petitioner"
"The said video does not in any manner establish the parading of the petitioner and/or the petitioner being handcuffed in the public presence so as to cause any injury as such to the reputation of the petitioner As afore observed, it was but required for the concerned police officer to record the reasons in writing in the case dairy as to why the petitioner was required to be handcuffed"...
The respondents' contention that the handcuffing of the petitioner was resorted to owing to a lack of police personnel to safeguard and prevent escape is no excuse at all. "It is for the State to equip all police stations with adequate and necessary police personnel required for the purpose of discharge of the duties and obligations of the State". In light of such an argument raised by the respondents, the Court directed such matter be brought to the notice of the Director-General of Police and Principal Secretary of Home Department to prepare a plan and complete the recruitment in a time-bound manner.
"While awarding compensation, the Court would have to take into consideration the loss/damage that might have been caused to the person who has been handcuffed to recompensate him/her for such damage. Apart therefrom, the Court would also have to consider the imposition of compensation as a deterrent to the Police Officers who do not discharge their duties in a proper manner and/or violate the applicable law.
"Though the State could be required to make payment of compensation, the compensation being paid on account of an officer of the State like a Police Officer not following the applicable law, the State would be at liberty to recover the same from the concerned defaulter/defaulters."

Guidelines issued:

In finding no valid justification by the respondents in the present matter, the Writ Petition was allowed and subsequently, the following guidelines were issued:

No person, whether accused, undertrial prisoner or convict shall be handcuffed unless the reason for the same is recorded in the case diary and/or the relevant record as to why such person is required to be handcuffed
If an accused is produced before a Court after arrest, it shall be the duty of the said Court to, among other things, inquire as to whether the said person had been handcuffed or not. If the person were to respond in the affirmative, the Court would have to ascertain the reasons for such handcuffing and decide on the validity or otherwise of such handcuffing.
The Trial Court shall endeavour as far as possible to avoid the physical appearance of the under-trial prisoner and permit the under-trial prisoner to appear through video conferencing. Only in the event of the Court being of the opinion that the physical presence of the accused is required in Court, then the Court could direct for such physical presence by a reasoned order.
As far as possible, permission to handcuff an under-trial prisoner would have to be taken prior to the production of the under-trial prisoner before the Court and obtain an order for handcuffing from the said Court. If no such permission is applied for and under-trial prisoners were to be handcuffed, the concerned police officer would be taking a risk of such handcuffing being declared illegal and action being taken against them.
The Director-General of Police shall also endeavour to make available body cameras to all the police officers entitled to arrest a person so that the manner of arrest is recorded by such body cameras. The camera shall also be equipped with a microphone to record the conversations that take place at that particular point in time. The video recording as also audio recording shall be retained at least for a period of one year from the date of recording. A Standard Operating Procedure shall be prepared by the Director-General of Police in this regard and suitable training to be provided to such officers.

Apart from this, the State was ordered to pay a sum of INR 2 Lakhs [as opposed to the INR 25 Lakhs initially sought by the petitioner] as compensation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

The matter has been listed to 7 November 2022 to report compliance with the above-mentioned directions.

Click to view the order

[Suprit Ishwar Divate v. State of Karnataka & Ors.]