E-Paper
Court orders inquiry after man alleges torture in CBI custody
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Tuesday ordered a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of custodial torture claimed by an undertrial while in CBI’s custody, observing that such accusations against officers of the country’s premier investigating agency cannot be permitted to remain unanswered
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Tuesday ordered a comprehensive inquiry into allegations of custodial torture claimed by an undertrial while in CBI’s custody, observing that such accusations against officers of the country’s premier investigating agency cannot be permitted to remain unanswered.
The order was passed by Special Judge Sushant Changotra of Rouse Avenue Courts after the accused, Prabhat Kumar, arrested on June 16 by the federal agency for allegedly being a middleman in a ₹3-crore bribery case, alleged custodial torture.
CBI had last week arrested 2012-batch Haryana IPS officer and Bureau of Civil Aviation Security’s (BCAS) regional director Deepak Gahlawat in the same case over allegations of receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 3 crores for exercising his personal influence over an unknown public servant in CBI, to secure favourable relief in a 5,000 crore counterfeit medicine racket case in Puducherry.
Apart from Gehlawat and Kumar, CBI has arrested N. Raja, the alleged prime accused in the racket and a Delhi Police Inspector Pradeep Singh, in the case.
Kumar last week moved an application, stating that after he was remanded to CBI’s custody on June 17, he was allegedly beaten badly due to which he suffered serious injuries in his left ear and on his left thigh.
Kumar’s counsel argued that between June 16 to June 22 when Kumar was in CBI’s custody, his medical examination was conducted regularly, however the June 19 report showed injury on his left thigh.
He argued that the accused had also complained of ear pain, following which blood clots were found in his ear with complaints of a history of physical assault being pointed out by the Safdarjung hospital.
The accused told the court that he could identify four CBI officials who had allegedly assaulted him. The assault on his ear, Kumar said, has significantly weakened his hearing capacity and sought action against the errant officers.
The prosecution argued that Kumar was medically examined on regularly and the allegations levelled by him were an afterthought.
The court in its order said that the accusations were not vague or bald but were “prima facie supported by contemporaneous medical records prepared by government doctors during subsistence of police custody”.
The court said that despite the accused having received these injuries while exclusively being in CBI’s custody, the investigating agency had offered absolutely no explanation whatsoever regarding their cause.
The court said, “It is not even the case of the CBI that the injuries were self-inflicted or accidental. The complete absence of any explanation assumes considerable significance, particularly when the accused has consistently alleged that he was taken by CBI officials to Bara Hindu Rao Police Station and was subjected to severe physical assault”.
The judge observed that the unexplained injuries of the accused coupled with his admitted movement to another police station during police custody and the contemporaneous medical evidence, lend substantial prima facie support to the allegations of custodial violence.
It said that if the allegations against CBI are casually brushed aside, it would amount to judicial indifference towards a serious violation of constitutional rights and could undermine in the administration of criminal justice.
Describing the incident as a “disturbing” and “sordid” state of affairs, the court went on the direct the jail superintendent to get Kumar medically examined from Safdarjung Hospital and a comprehensive and impartial enquiry be carried out, which shall not only identify the errant officers but also examine the role and responsibility of their superior officers.
The court said that the inquiry should be conducted by a senior officer unconnected with the case and if the enquiry revealed any commission of offence, appropriate criminal and departmental proceedings be initiated against the errant officers.
