The Allahabad High Court is requesting action to be taken against police officers implicated in the case of custodial violence against a man who was arrested for illegal parking.

Key words :-  Allahabad High Court , Custodial Violence , CCTV in Police Stations .

The  Court instructed the State to provide a thorough counter affidavit outlining the measures taken against the implicated police officers and the current status of CCTV operations at the relevant police station.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court ordered corrective measures against police officers alleged to have mistreated a boy in custody due to a roadside parking incident, as seen in the case of Rajat Bajpai versus the State. Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Narendra Kumar Johari also raised concerns regarding malfunctioning CCTV cameras in State police stations and directed the police department to resolve this matter.

The Court noted that the investigation officer found that the bullet cameras inside the relevant police station were not operational when it came to the CCTV footage.

Therefore, the Court instructed the State to provide a comprehensive counter affidavit outlining the measures taken against the implicated police personnel and the status of the CCTV functionality within the relevant police station.

The Court was considering a petition filed by Rajat Bajpai, who claimed to have been subjected to severe police brutality after his two-wheeler was found parked on the road, causing a traffic obstruction. The petition sought action against the responsible police officers.

In the earlier hearing, after noting the victim’s injuries, the Court had directed a medical examination. Subsequently, on August 17, the Court received the medical report, which confirmed that the injuries were a consequence of physical assault.

After examining mobile and video recordings from independent witnesses, the Additional Commissioner of Police determined that an argument about motorcycle parking resulted in Rajat Bajpai being escorted by police personnel to the police station.

The assessment also suggested that the petitioner’s injuries to his legs were due to friction or a scuffle resulting from him sitting on the road and being taken forcefully in a police vehicle.

However, the Court was not convinced by the opinion of the Additional Commissioner of Police, as there was a discrepancy between the medical reports, which indicated injuries from a solid and blunt object, and the claim of physical assault.

Additionally, the Court observed that the Additional Commissioner of Police did not provide any opinion regarding the potential involvement of the two constables in assaulting the petitioner.

The Court also pointed out that the constables were not individually named as respondents in the current petition. Consequently, the Court directed that they should be included as parties to the case and scheduled the next hearing for September 20.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates PRS Bajpai, Abhishek Yadav, Anand Mani Tripathi, Harsh Tripathi, Manoj Kumar Mishra, and Ravindra Bajpai.

Written by :- RATNESH TEMBE, College :- Law Department , PIMR , Indore , An intern under LEGAL VIDHIYA.

Admin