The single justice bench of Manipur High Court, A Guneshwar Sharma has restrained the police from routinely picking up a man, accused in a 10-year case under UAPA Act, from his residence on every Independence and Republic Day to make him pose for photograph in full public view.
Considering such kind of action of the police as violation of right to life and privacy of the accused, the HC directed police to issue a notice in the nature of Section 41-A CrPC.
The petitioner, who presently runs a mobile food truck business, was arrested on April 21, 2012 in connection with FIR No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 UA(P) Act and was subsequently released on bail on April 30, 2012. In the FIR, it was recorded that the petitioner was a member of banned outfit PLA/RPF.
It was alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested on the ground that he was carrying Rs 90,000 with him. It was further stated that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and there is no progress in the investigation since his arrest 10 years ago.
It was also stated that the petitioner was picked up from his residence on every Independence Day and Republic Day i.e., August 15 and January 26 every year by the police who took his photographs in full public view and hence, his prestige and reputation has been tarnished in the society.
Since there is no progress in the investigation for more than 10 years, the petitioner approached the HC with a prayer that his name may be deleted from the FIR or the court may direct the police to file a charge sheet within a time frame.
He also filed an application inter-alia praying that during pendency, the police may be directed not to pick up the petitioner and wrongfully detain him in custody in the guise of FIR No. 208 (04) 2012 IPS u/S 17/20 UA(P) Act on the ground that such routine detention of the petitioner on the eve of 26th January and 15th August every year and also during the visit of high dignitaries, violates his right of live with dignity and his right of privacy.
However, it was submitted from the state that he was arrested for being a member of a banned outfit and from his possession, a cash of Rs 90,000 was recovered. It was stated that he used to collect money from various departments and businessmen and transferred the same to the organization as party fund after retaining his percentage.
The state underlined that Manipur is an insurgency-prone state and there has to be strict vigilance and surveillance over the movement of cadres or members of outlawed organizations, especially on the occasions of Independence Day and Republic Day. Accordingly, the petitioner being a bail-out member of PLA/RPF, the police make some queries about his life after releasing him on bail and states that he was never arrested or detained.
The HC noted that the investigation in the instant case could not be completed till date and there is not much progress in the investigation. The only explanation given by the State authorities is that associates of the present petitioner could not be arrested and hence, the matter could not be completed.
The HC also noted that the offences under UA(P) Act are serious one relating to the security of the nation and the FIR cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without going to the complete merit of the case.
Therefore, to strike a balance, the HC directed the respondents to complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order and submit a report under Section 173 CrPC to the concerned court.
It also clarified that if the presence of the petitioner is required by the Investigating Agency in connection with the FIR or for any reason, a notice in the nature of Section 41-A CrPC be issued to the petitioner for his appearance before the Investigating Authority on a particular date. In case, the petitioner fails to appear before the Investigating Officer, necessary steps may be taken up by the police for effecting his appearance.
“This direction is issued keeping in mind the settled principles of law of maintaining the intricate balance between the fundamental right to live with dignity of a citizen vis-à-vis the affairs of security of the State. It may be pertinent to observe here that the Court ought not to pass any sort of order which may restrict the power of police in maintaining the law and order of the State, except for protecting the basic right of a citizen”, it added.
