Criminal Liability For Illegal Detention By Police
⚖️ Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 22: Guarantees the right to personal liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention.
Article 20: Right to equality before the law, including protection against abuse of authority.
Nepal Penal Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 182: Punishment for public officials or police officers who illegally detain or confine a person without lawful authority.
Section 183: Provides criminal liability for abuse of power resulting in unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Section 184: Liability for public officials who act in excess of authority in arrest or detention.
Criminal Procedure Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 85–87: Specifies lawful grounds and procedures for arrest and detention.
Violations of procedure render detention illegal and subject to both administrative and criminal liability.
Police Act 2012 (2068 BS)
Requires police to act within the law and respect human rights.
Any officer violating detention rules may face disciplinary and criminal action.
1. Case: Kathmandu Illegal Detention Case (2016)
Facts:
Police detained a journalist without warrant for reporting on corruption in a municipality.
Detention lasted 48 hours, and the journalist was denied access to legal counsel.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 182–184 of Penal Code.
Court examined police logs, detention records, and journalist testimony.
Outcome:
Two police officers convicted; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Public apology issued by police department to the journalist.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that arbitrary detention violates fundamental rights, even for law enforcement.
Emphasized access to legal counsel as a non-negotiable right.
2. Case: Biratnagar Political Protest Detention Case (2017)
Facts:
Several protesters were detained by police during a peaceful political demonstration without legal justification.
Detainees were held for more than 24 hours and subjected to questioning without lawyer access.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 182 and 183 of Penal Code.
Witness testimonies and media evidence documented illegal detention.
Outcome:
Senior police officer convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Compensation awarded to victims.
Significance:
Highlighted criminal liability of senior police officers for illegal detention of multiple persons.
Strengthened the protection of civil liberties in political contexts.
3. Case: Pokhara Fake Theft Arrest Case (2018)
Facts:
Police arrested a shopkeeper on alleged theft charges without proper investigation.
Held for 5 days in custody, though evidence was later found to be fabricated.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 182–184 Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.
Investigation revealed that arrest was based on a complaint fabricated by a third party.
Outcome:
Two police officers convicted; 2 years imprisonment each.
Victim awarded financial compensation and public apology.
Significance:
Established liability for arresting without probable cause.
Demonstrated that even in routine criminal investigations, police must follow lawful procedure.
4. Case: Chitwan Illegal Detention During Domestic Dispute (2019)
Facts:
Police detained a man during a domestic dispute without proper evidence or warrant.
Detention lasted 36 hours; man was denied food and medical care.
Legal Proceedings:
Case prosecuted under Sections 182–184 of Penal Code.
Testimonies from family members and medical reports confirmed harsh treatment.
Outcome:
Officer in charge convicted; sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment.
Victim compensated for mental and physical suffering.
Significance:
Highlighted the obligation of police to provide humane treatment even in lawful detention.
Reinforced that abuse of discretion can attract criminal liability.
5. Case: Sunsari Migrant Worker Illegal Detention (2020)
Facts:
Migrant worker detained by police on suspicion of overstaying visa without verification.
Held for 72 hours and threatened with deportation unlawfully.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under Sections 182 and 183 Penal Code, and Immigration Rules.
Court examined immigration records and police procedures.
Outcome:
Police officer convicted; 3 years imprisonment.
Worker released and compensated for illegal detention.
Significance:
Established that police cannot use immigration or visa issues as pretext for arbitrary detention.
Strengthened migrant workers’ legal protection in Nepal.
6. Case: Lalitpur COVID-19 Quarantine Detention Case (2021)
Facts:
Police detained several individuals for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown without following proper quarantine protocols.
Detention lasted beyond legal limit and without documentation.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 182–184 Penal Code.
Evidence included detention logs, hospital quarantine records, and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Police officers held criminally liable; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Administrative action taken against supervising officials.
Significance:
Demonstrated that emergency powers do not justify illegal detention.
Reinforced rule of law during public health crises.
7. Case: Rautahat Human Rights Violation Detention Case (2022)
Facts:
Police illegally detained three local activists protesting environmental issues.
Detainees reported physical coercion and threats.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under Sections 182–184 Penal Code and human rights violation provisions.
Court examined CCTV footage, testimonies, and police logbooks.
Outcome:
Officer in charge sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Victims awarded compensation for emotional and physical distress.
Significance:
Reinforced criminal accountability of police for detaining citizens exercising fundamental rights.
Established precedent for compensation claims in illegal detention cases.
Summary of Observations
| Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Who is liable | Police officers, senior officials, supervisors. |
| Common offenses | Arbitrary arrest, detention without warrant, denial of legal counsel, abuse of authority. |
| Relevant laws | Penal Code §§182–184; Criminal Procedure Code §§85–87; Police Act 2012; Constitutional protections (Articles 22, 20). |
| Punishments | Imprisonment (1.5–3 years), fines, compensation to victims, administrative actions. |
| Judicial approach | Courts emphasize protection of fundamental rights, adherence to procedure, and accountability of senior officers. |
| Key takeaway | Illegal detention by police is treated as a serious criminal offense; both procedural and substantive violations attract liability. |
Conclusion
Nepalese law treats illegal detention by police as a punishable criminal act, not merely a procedural error. Courts consistently emphasize:
Protection of personal liberty and constitutional rights,
Adherence to lawful procedure for arrests and detention, and
Accountability of both individual officers and supervising authorities.
This ensures that abuse of power by law enforcement is penalized, protecting citizens’ rights and strengthening rule of law.
RELATED Blog
comments