Arrested accused, undertrial prisoners can be handcuffed only in extreme circumstances after recording reasons: Karnataka High Court

Handcuffing of an accused person can be resorted to only in extreme circumstances, the Karnataka High Court recently held [Suprit Ishwar Divate v State of Karnataka]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that a person arrested cannot normally be handcuffed."An accused who is arrested can normally not be handcuffed. It is only under extreme circumstances that handcuffing of an accused can be resorted to," the order said.When such handcuffing is made, the arresting officer is required to record the reasons for handcuffing, which would have to sustain the scrutiny of the Court, the judge further held.The Court, therefore, ordered the State to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to the petitioner who claimed illegal handcuffing, loss of reputation, and illegal detention even before he was proven guilty.Pertinently, the Court directed that body cameras with microphones should be made available to all police officers entitled to arrest a person, so that the manner of arrest is recorded by such cameras..The Court also issued the following directions to govern handcuffing of accused. .- No person whether he be an accused, under trial prisoner or convict shall be handcuffed unless the reason for the same is recorded in the case dairy and/or the relevant record as to why such a person is required to be handcuffed.- If any accused or under trial prisoner is produced before a court after arrest, it shall be the duty of the court to among other things to enquire as to whether the said person had been handcuffed or not. If the person responds in the affirmative, the court would have to ascertain the reasons for such handcuffing and to decide on the validity or otherwise of such handcuffing.- The trial Court shall endeavor as far as possible to the avoid 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 prisoner 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 contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) that the handcuffing of the petitioner was resorted to since there were not enough police personnel to safeguard and prevent the escape if any 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.- The HCGP pointed out that there are several vacancies. If that be so, it is for the State to fill up those vacancies at the earliest. The learned HCGP is directed to bring to the notice of the Director General of Police and the Principal Secretary Home Department about the above observations so as to prepare a plan and complete the recruitment in a time bound manner.- The Director General of Police shall also endeavor 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 microphone to record the conversations that take place at that particular point of 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.The petitioner, a law student, had sought compensation of ₹25 lakh after he was arrested in relation to criminal cases instituted against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act.The petitioner submitted that he was paraded through a marketplace in handcuffs by the police thus, causing harm to his reputation and violating his fundamental rights..While examining the issue, the single-judge placed reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shri Kisan v State of Maharasthra wherein it was opined that the principle of strict liability principle should be applied for unnecessary handcuffing of an accused.Therefore, the Court found that handcuffing only be if there was a possibility of the accused or under trial prisoner escaping custody, causing harm to himself or others.“The nature of offences and the punishment prescribed for the said offence are not relevant for the matter of handcuffing,” the Court held. .In this case, the Court concluded that there was a violation by the arresting officer and, therefore, the petitioner would be eligible for compensation.“The respondent No.1-State is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,” the order said..Advocate Santosh P Pujari appeared for the petitioner while advocate Praveen K Uppar appeared for the respondent. .[Read Judgment]