Site news

ANEES CLAIMS THAT HE IS A CHRONIC PATIENT UNNECESSARILY CALLED BY POLICE WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINT PRIODICALLY

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
ANEES CLAIMS THAT HE IS A CHRONIC PATIENT UNNECESSARILY CALLED BY POLICE WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINT PRIODICALLY
by System Administrator - Thursday, 22 January 2015, 11:23 AM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru: Anees Pasha s/o Nisar Ahmad No 64/39 3rd cross Ayappa garden Bangalore-560030 Mobile-9901865059 has filed a complaint before KSHRC asked to protect him and his liberty of life and to rescue him from the police torture otherwise he will die with this kind of torture as he claims that he is simple person with small business of water tanker supplying water in locality and he is a chronic patient and his health is not in good shape and every now and then he get admitted in hospital as his Platelet Count is drastically low to 43,000/- micro litre whereas normal person will have it 1-50-4.0 Lakhs /microlitre and even police do not care about his health and threaten him to appear before the police and this has affected his normal day to day life and his liberty to life .He has requested human right commission to intervene in the matter and protect human right and dignity of his life. He has requested to issue orders at the earliest to KSHRC and stop this harassment and police should stop him calling periodically to police station and filing 110 cases. He is fearing that the new inspector also may call and harass him under the orders from the top officers any time.In a complaint before KSHRC against Police Inspector and his staff at Audgodi Police Station Bangalore and other police stations for Human right violations and liberty of life as periodically, and several time Police is asking him to appear before the Sub- Inspector of Police or higher officers and without any complaint and case and FIR against him and conducting enquiry or collecting information and torturing him .The police state that they have orders from the top to call him without any case and FIR .He claims that he is nothabitual offender or addicted to crime or to have aided or abetted any a crime and his name cannot be in rowdy sheet . He was falsely booked by Police in one of case of assault case against him under section 120B of IPC in FIR 270/2012 and he is contesting the case .As per medical reports he is chronic patient and my health is not in good shape and every now and then he get admitted in hospital as his Platelet Count is drastically low to 43,000/- micro litre whereas normal person will have it 1-50-4.0 Lakhs /microlitre and even police do not care about hishealth and threaten him to appear before the police and this has affected my normal day to day life and my liberty to life . He has requested to issue orders at the earliest to KSHRC and stop this harassment and police should stop him calling periodically to police station and filing 110 cases. He is fearing that the new inspector also may call and harass him under the orders from the top officers any time.

The Karnataka police need to manage the "Rowdy” and "Rowdy Sheet” Management as per law. The Courts have said that "The police is under duty to exercise due caution and care in the matter of monitoring the movements and surveillance of every rowdy sheeter and see that the same does not interfere with their day to day normal life.” Police Standing Orders reads as follows: "Rowdies:- (1) The following persons may be classified as rowdies and Rowdy Sheets (Form 88) may be opened for them under the order of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer: (a) persons who habitually commit, attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace; (b) persons bound over under Sections 106,107,108 (c) and 110(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974); (c) persons who have been convicted more than once in two consecutive years Under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act or Under Section 3, clause (12), of the Towns Nuisances Act; (d) persons who habitually tease women and girls by passing indecent remarks or otherwise; and (e) in the case of rowdies residing in an area under one Police Station but are found to be frequently visiting the area under one or more other Police Stations their rowdy-sheets can be maintained at all such Police Stations. (G.O.Ms. No. 656, Home (Police-D) Dept., dated 8th April, 1971).It is clear from a plain reading of the Standing Order that no rowdy sheet could be opened against a person who does not fall within the categories mentioned in the Standing Order No. 742 (1) (a) to (e). About category of persons mentioned in categories (b) to (e) and classifying them as rowdies and opening rowdy sheets against them under the orders of the Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Officer may not create any problem as there is not much of discretion left to the authorities concerned. The problem may arise only in cases where clause (a) is applicable, classifying the persons who habitually commit the offences involving the breach of peace. A plain reading of the provision does not suggest that such persons must have been convicted at least in more than two cases to make such persons as habitual offenders. In fact the very decision relied upon against whom a rowdy-sheet is opened. Surveillance of such persons whose names are entered in the rowdy-sheets,for reasons unconnected with the prevention of crime and beyond cannot be countenanced. After all the whole purpose of classifying the persons as rowdies and entering their names in the rowdy-sheet is the prevention of crime and no other purpose. Otherwise the order of classification will be bad and void. Surveillance and monitoring of movements of persons whose names are entered in rowdy-sheets should therefore, be proportionate and commensurate to the reasonable apprehension or suspicion entertained by the concerned Police Officer and only with a view to prevent commission of a crime which may result in breach of peace. Any excessive action on the part of the police would not only be ultra virus the Standing Order No. 742 but also would be violative of right to equality and right to freedom guaranteed by Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Any unauthorised physical restraint or coercion of any sort would be violative of the fundamental right to freedom and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That the right to personal liberty in substance . "In the police manual, a rowdy is defined as one who uses violence or threats of violence or intimidation against law-abiding citizens. Rowdies are those who collect hafta, run gambling, matka dens, indulge in eve-teasing and crimes against women. Police are empowered to take stringent action against rowdies and goondas under Criminal Procedure Code. However, if notorious rowdies indulge in repeat offences, police propose preventive detention under the Goonda Act in which the rowdy will be behind bars for a year,” "Two instances would not make a person a habitual offender. At least more than two instances should be present before a person can be described as a habitual offender. Merely because the two persons are figuring as accused in respect of two crimes registered by Police, no inference can be drawn that they are habitual offenders".In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana and Ors., , it is held that:"Ordinarily the names of persons with previous criminal record alone are entered in the surveillance register. They must be proclaimed offenders, previous convicts, or persons who have already been placed on security for good behaviour. In addition, names of persons who are reasonably believed to be habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property whether they have been convicted or not may be entered. It is only in the case of this category of persons that there may be occasion for abuse of the power of the police officer to make entries in the surveillance register. But, here, the entry is only to be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register, it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief." However, there cannot be any doubt that the Police Officer who is entrusted with the responsibility of classifying the person as a rowdy and opening of rowdy-sheet is under the duty and obligation to consider the applicability of Standing Order strictly and confine the entry in the rowdy-sheet only to such class of persons mentioned in the Standing Order and it is not as if the Police have the power and opportunity to enter the names of whomsoever they like in the said register. The expressions like 'by habit', 'habitual', 'desperate', 'dangerous', 'hazardous' cannot be flung in the face of a man with laxity of semantics. The Court must insist on specificity of facts and be satisfied that one swallow does not make a summer and a consistent course of conduct convincing enough to draw the rigorous inference that by confirmed habit, which is second nature.