Crime Today News
The Kerala High Court has berated the state police for barging into the house of an alleged history-sheeter at night under the garb of surveillance.
Noting that every man’s house was his castle or temple, the single-judge Bench of Justice VG Arun observed that its sanctity could not be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours.
It said that a person’s right to life encompassed the right to live with dignity, with dignity being non-negotiable.
The officers should understand that the concept of a home encompassed a rich tapestry of existential, emotional and social dimensions. Under the guise of surveillance, police could not knock on the doors or barge into the houses of history-sheeters, it noted.
The High Court made these observations, while allowing a criminal petition filed by an alleged history-sheeter seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for interfering in the functions of the police, punishable under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act.
It was alleged that the petitioner did not let the police party, which was on night check duty of rowdy history-sheeters, enter his house at around 1:30 am.
The single-judge Bench was considering whether the police had the authority to visit the residences of history-sheeters as part of surveillance.
After going through the general instructions regarding surveillance, contained in Paragraph 265 of the Kerala Police Manual, the High Court said it was only a set of guidelines governing the members of the police force and did not fall within the meaning of statute.
As per the manual, only ‘informal watching’ of history-sheeters was permitted. With respect to persons leading criminal existence, ‘close watch’ was permitted under the provision. In neither of these cases, domicile visit at night was permitted, noted the High Court.
Justice Arun referred to the Supreme Court verdict in Kharak Singh vs State of UP and Others (1962), which declared the provision empowering domicile visits in police surveillance as unconstitutional.
He further mentioned the judgment in the KS Puttaswamy and Another vs Union of India case, which declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the single-judge Bench held that the police could not barge into the houses of suspected persons or persons with criminal history in the name of surveillance, that too at odd hours.
The High Court further cited Section 39 of the Kerala Police Act, which stated that all persons must comply with the lawful directions given by a police officer for the discharge of his functions under the Act.
Going into the house of history sheeters at night and asking them to come out could not be termed as ‘lawful direction’ under Section 39, it added.
The single-judge Bench observed that knocking on the doors of a history-sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house could not, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as a lawful direction.
The petitioner could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act for refusing to abide by that direction. However, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he was currently charged with, it added.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
