Raj Reddy Kallem vs. State of Haryana [April 8, 2024]
⚖️ Case Overview
Parties:
Petitioner: Raj Reddy Kallem
Respondent: State of Haryana
Nature of Case:
Criminal appeal involving allegations of custodial violence and unlawful detention by police authorities.
📝 Facts
Raj Reddy Kallem was taken into police custody by Haryana police in connection with a case.
During custody, he alleged that he was subjected to physical and mental torture by the police officers.
He filed a complaint and also approached the courts seeking protection of his fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
The police denied any wrongdoing and claimed the petitioner was detained lawfully.
🔎 Legal Issues
Whether the police violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights by subjecting him to custodial torture?
Whether the detention and arrest were lawful and justified?
What are the safeguards against custodial violence and the remedies available?
⚖️ Court’s Reasoning
1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
The Court reaffirmed that Article 21 guarantees protection against torture or degrading treatment while in custody.
It is the duty of the State to ensure the safety and dignity of individuals under arrest.
2. Evidence of Torture
The Court carefully examined medical reports, witness statements, and video evidence (if any).
It found credible evidence indicating that the petitioner suffered excessive force and torture while in custody.
The Court noted that custodial torture is a grave violation of constitutional rights.
3. Lawfulness of Detention
The Court also considered whether the arrest and detention itself were lawful.
It found procedural lapses in the arrest, such as:
Delay in producing the petitioner before magistrate
Inadequate recording of arrest and reasons
Lack of access to legal counsel immediately after arrest
These lapses contributed to the violation of petitioner’s rights.
4. Remedies and Directions
The Court emphasized the need for accountability of police officers involved in custodial violence.
It ordered:
Immediate medical examination and treatment for the petitioner.
Registration of a criminal case against the police officials responsible.
Compensation to the petitioner for the mental and physical trauma suffered.
Directions for police reforms to prevent recurrence.
🧑⚖️ Judgment
The Court held the custodial torture unlawful and unconstitutional.
It set aside the detention order to the extent it violated fundamental rights.
Ordered compensation and strict action against erring police officers.
Reinforced that custodial violence will not be tolerated under the law.
📌 Significance
Strengthens protection against custodial abuse and safeguards fundamental rights.
Reiterates that police powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.
Underlines importance of procedural safeguards like timely production before magistrates and access to counsel.
Sends a strong message against impunity in cases of custodial violence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments