Cattle vigilantism has made an appearance as 'bovine policing' in national capital: Delhi Court

Rule of law is the most sacrosanct holy cow that the police must protect, a Delhi Court recently remarked while granting bail to an accused who claimed that the police shot him in custody after he was arrested for alleged cattle smuggling [State v. Deepak Chauhan, Bablu, Aijaz]..Judge Vishal Gogne noted in his order,"It may not be inappropriate for the court to observe that the rule of law is the most sacrosanct holy cow which the police must protect. It does, however, appear that the cattle vigilantism, so apparent in the nation of late, has made an appearance as bovine policing within the national capital too.".With reference to one of the cases, the Court held,"That the persons accused of being alleged cattle thieves are named Aijaj, Irshad, Ismyle, Nabia and Sajit and two of them namely Irshad and Aijaj were allegedly shot by the police officials in their knees without any recovery of such animals from them is either an ironic coincidence or portends something more frightful. Such tendencies towards bad land policing are certainly not welcome or tolerable in the law abiding environs of the capital.".The Court was hearing bail pleas filed by three men - Aijaz, Deepak Chauhan and Bablu - who were implicated in three separate FIRs related to purported crimes of cattle theft, illegal supply of weapons and vehicle theft, respectively. In all three cases, the police alleged that the accused had attacked police personnel, prompting retaliatory firing. The accused had also filed complaints before the Court alleging wrongful confinement, wrongful implication and unwarranted custodial gun shot injuries inflicted upon them by the police. This, after the police refused to lodge FIRs on their complaints..After granting bail to the three men in the separate cases, the Court went on to examine their complaints, explaining why it was essential to direct the Metropolitan Magisterial (MM) Courts having jurisdiction over the respective police stations, to look into the allegations against the police. The order highlighted, “Prospect of a strongman, local or parochial delivering vigilante justice to suspected criminals being antithetical to the rule of law, no court of law could be dissuaded by the girth of the authority that may prima facie have vitiated the lawful exercise of power or deadly force.”.Justifying why it couldn't summarily reject the “verifiable allegations” merely because they impact police authorities, the Court said,"The courts indeed are mindful of a tendency among accused persons to quite often blame the police for wrongful confinement and implication as a tool of defence. Caution in accepting such allegations is therefore a matter of necessary prudence. Yet, instances of custodial violence, wrongful implication and detention are an equally well documented phenomenon in our country. In fact, countless commissions and judicial decisions have sought to address such tendencies.".The Court also found a “commonality” in the three separate FIRs, that the accused had bullet injuries at precisely the same area - their knees.“While the applicants allegedly having first fired at the police and the respective police teams then firing back in self defence may be a prospect for a finding only upon trial, the allegations relating to intentional firing upon precisely the same location of the body i.e. the knee are beyond the stereotypical and cannot be dismissed as a case of fanciful defence,” the Court pointed out.Judge Gogne further remarked,“All service pistols/weapons used by the police officials are reported to have found the bull’s eye painted on the knee of the five suspects. How the police officials manage a front on hit i.e. a bullet injury on the front of the knee when all suspects were allegedly escaping also borders on the incredible.” .The Court thus took a prima facie view that the complaints made by the accused indeed disclose information relating to commission of custodial violence by the respective police teams.It called for the reports from the respective police stations to be sent to the jurisdictional MMs, before whom the accused will be at liberty to make arguments under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Making a note of the "unequal equation between the complainants and the might of the authorities," the Court called for necessary steps to ensure the safety of the accused who have been granted bail."The attention of the ld concerned MMs is hence drawn to the existence of a Witness Protection Committee which is headed by the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South West, Dwarka," the order stated..As regards compensation to the accused, the Court directed that their claims be considered by the Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority, Dwarka Courts for grant of interim compensation."Notably, all complainants have expressed some measure of impairment in their gait on account of the gun shots through their knees. This court finds it to be an opportunity for the humane hand of the state to assuage what the strong arm of the State may possibly have impaired," the Court concluded..[Read Order]