Court slams Gujarat cops for holding minor son as ‘bait’ for accused

While upholding kidnapping charges in a 2008 case, a Delhi court has pulled up four Gujarat Police officers for illegally keeping a minor child of an accused in their custody as a “bait” for his fatherIn an 11-page order passed by additional sessions judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma courts on August 12 and made available on Monday, the court took exception to the way in which a team of Gujarat Police officers came to Delhi and forcibly took the minor son from his mother while they were at her scrap shop after they could not trace his father who was accused in a case

While upholding kidnapping charges in a 2008 case, a Delhi court has pulled up four Gujarat Police officers for illegally keeping a minor child of an accused in their custody as a “bait” for his father

Following the incident, the accused officers were not suspended from the force; however, an internal inquiry was initiated (Photo for representation)

In an 11-page order passed by additional sessions judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma courts on August 12 and made available on Monday, the court took exception to the way in which a team of Gujarat Police officers came to Delhi and forcibly took the minor son from his mother while they were at her scrap shop after they could not trace his father who was accused in a case.

The court underlined in its order, “Their (police officers’) duty was to search for the accused who was the father of the minor and not to take the minor child in their custody and act like colonial overlords of the past and hang that minor child as a bait for his father to surrender before them.”

The court order further said that the act of taking out the minor child not only from the custody of his mother but taking him across states and keeping him in their custody was “by no stretch of imagination be stated to be an act done while discharging their duty”.

The court went on to conclude that the act of the officers had no connection with their official duty, as contended by them, and thus there was no requirement for Delhi Police to obtain the Gujarat government’s prior sanction under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to prosecute them.

The case arises out of an FIR lodged on the complaint of the mother of the minor child at Seelampur Police Station, wherein she alleged that on May 25, 2008, five to six police officials of the Gujarat Police came to her scrap shop in a civil dress and enquired about her husband, who was an accused in a case.

She alleged that when she could not give a satisfactory response on her husband’s whereabouts, the officers forcibly took her minor son from her lawful custody to Gujarat. A case under the penal sections of kidnapping and common intention was lodged initially against unidentified persons.

In July 2009, the minor boy’s mother also moved the Delhi High Court with a writ petition, seeking a habeas corpus direction to the Gujarat government to produce her 13-year-old son before the court and grant her a compensation.

A division bench had at the time, noted that the torture meted out to the minor boy was in the nature of “mental torture”, which could be gauged from the fact that the accused officers took him to Ahmedabad and “threw him in a lock-up” without telling him what had he done wrong.

Finding the act violative of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, the court had directed the Gujarat government to pay a compensation of Rs. 2.7 lakhs to the complainant and her son and ordered his immediate production.

Subsequently, further investigation led to a chargesheet being filed in October 2010 before a Delhi court, naming then Gujarat Police sub-inspector JM Bharvad as an accused and he was thereafter summoned and granted bail.

Later, a supplementary chargesheet was filed in 2014 against three other officers of Bharvad’s team, namely Ashok Patel, Lokhil Harsur and Solanki Ramachandra, all of whom were granted bail by court on being summoned.

Following the incident, the accused officers were not suspended from the force, however, an internal inquiry was initiated.

In April this year, a magistrate framed kidnapping charges against the officers after finding prima facie material to proceed against them. They challenged the cognisance and charge order through the present revision petition.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the accused, advocate Paritosh Anil, defended their actions, arguing that the officers took away the minor boy in discharge of their official duties.

The counsel further argued that the accused officers came under official orders and had taken the minor son to trace his father, who was absconding in a case lodged in Gujarat.

The defence counsel stated that the Gujarat government had repeatedly refused to grant sanction for prosecuting the officers and hence taking cognisance of the offence and subsequently framing of charges was barred.

Meanwhile, the prosecution submitted that the act of taking away the minor boy from her mother’s custody was not connected to any official duty.

Additional Public Prosecutor Gaurav Singh, argued that the official duty of a police personnel, which is to search for an accused in this case, cannot be extended to kidnapping his family members and showed “police high-handedness”.

The court held that the accused persons, at that time, were certainly acting in their official duty, but it was not merely acting in official capacity that would give them the protection but the act committed should also have a reasonable connection to that duty. “On the face of the facts of the case, prima facie an offence under kidnapping is made out,” the court noted.