High court verdict on 2012 persecution

From Kailasapedia
Revision as of 05:40, 10 September 2020 by Ma.Akila (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Title

High Court Verdict on 2012 Persecution

Blatant Misuse of Sections 101 and 151

The extremity of persecution and brutal attacks done on HDH, can be understood by observing the circumstances, the judicial laws and the foul play of the STATE POLICE. Section 107 deals with 'Security of keeping the peace in other case' and purports the power of the Executive Magistrate who has received information that a person is likely to commit breach of peach or disturb public tranquility in any way, and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year.

Section 107 does vest any power in the hands of the police to arrest.
Section 151 of Cr.P.C. deals with 'Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. According to this:

  • A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
  • directs that 'No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorized under any other provisions of this code or of any other law for the time being in force.

Abuse of the powers under sections 107 and 151

  • Historically, preventive arrest was notoriously used in India during British rule under the Bengal Regulation - III of 1818 (The Bengal State Prisoners Regulation) which empowered the government to details or arrest anybody on mere suspicion
  • For instance, the arrest of Anna Hazare on August 2011 under section 1071 and 151 was unconstitutional, against democratic principles and similar to the situation during National Emergency, by the retired IPS Officer - Kiran Bedi (also Alumni of Faculty of Law, DU)
  • Section 107 is a preventive section and not Punitive, hence there is no strong and legal ground for incarcerating a person unless there is no strong and legal grounds for incarcerating a person unless there has been an in-depth scrutiny of facts. In the case of His Divine Holiness, there was no scrutiny of Facts by District Magistrate, it was straight unlawful use of Section 107 Cr Pc.

High Court admonishes Government for Abuse of Power and attacks on HDH and Sangha

CRL.P. 3253 of 2012
In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, Criminal Petition No. 3253 of 2012, Sri Nithyananda Swamiji versus (1) District Magistrate And Deputy Commissioner (Ramanagar District), (2) State of Karnataka, Bidadi Police Station, Order date - 25 February 2013
Original order copy from official High Court Website
Original order copy from third party website

  • The High Court termed the arrest and proceedings that followed as "illegal". To quote the exact order, Perusal of the certified copy of the proceedings before the District Magistrate would indicate the further illegality in the proceedings.
  • Based on the already established illegal FIR by the Sub-Inspector, the District Magistrate forced an arrest of His Divine Holiness, and had Him brought to his office by means of a 600-battalion paramilitary police-force. The Magistrate ordered His Divine Holiness to be produced in-front of himself. Following this the District Magistrate remanded His Divine Holiness to prison for a period of seven days.
  • The High Court said that
    • His Divine Holiness was remanded by the District Magistrate without authority.
    • The order of District Magistrate to force His Divine Holiness to execute a interim bond worth Rs. 1,00,000 was without any authority and illegal .
    • The order of District Magistrate to force His Divine Holiness to execute a interim bond without holding any enquiry was contrary to law and without jurisdiction
    • There was no preliminary order as required by Section 111 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire proceedings before the District Magistrate , Ramanagara, initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and various orders passed therein were contrary to law and without any jurisdiction.
    • The Court quashed the unlawful police action FIR in Crime No 308/2012.
Retrieved from "https://kailasapedia.org/index.php?title=High_court_verdict_on_2012_persecution&oldid=71446"