& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

STRAIGHT LINE

The en masse accusation

We all know that to accuse people, especially in huge numbers, without an apparent justification is one of the most serious encroachments upon the citizen's liberty. The reasonable suspicion must haue definite fact or some tangible proof sufficient enough to establish in the mind of a reasonable police officer the credibility of that information.

Muhammad Nurul Huda
The Daily Star editorial on August 2 raised concerns about the rationale behind accusing several hundred
unidentified persons or students in connection with a violent incident on and outside the campus of Jahangirnagar University.
Reportedly, two cases have been filed and only a few accused have been named while all others were unidentified. The concern is apparently significant as the charges are grave; such as attacking on-duty policemen and obstructing them from discharging duties.
The worrisome aspect is that over the years the practice of accusing a whole lot of people has become a trend, reflecting either confused and incompetent handling or deliberately leaving scope for arm-twisting and harassment. The whole transaction smacks of a hunt for moneymaking or extortion. Either ways, there is a premonition that needs serious attention for providing relief to public and ensuring law enforcement practice.
When apparently random accusations are made it is only natural that indiscriminate arrest may follow. In such a scenario, there is a strong possibility of miscarriage of investigation. In effect the ends of justice and fair play are not likely to be met. Therefore, there is a requirement to look into the statutory provisions related to criminal accusation and subsequent curtailment of liberty by means of arrest.
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, has conferred very wide powers on police in making arrest but the limiting factor is the necessary requirement of reasonability and credibility of information to prevent
the misuse of powers.
We all know that to accuse people, especially in huge numbers, without an apparent justification is one of the most serious encroachments upon the citizen's liberty. The reasonable suspicion must have definite fact or some tangible proof sufficient enough to establish in the mind of a reasonable police officer the credibility of that information. This must be related to averments which the arresting officer should consider before he acts. Let us remember that the authority that the law confers in this regard is personal and the responsibility is personal also.
The expression "credible and reasonable" in Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code must refer to the mind of the person by whom the information is received and mere assertion cannot form the material for the exercise of judgment by such person.
The arresting police officer has to exercise his own judgment for which he must have the necessary facts before him. Reasonable suspicion is understood to mean a bona fide belief that an offence had been committed or is about to be committed necessitating the arrest of the person concerned.
There is nothing in Section 54 to suggest that the arresting police officer is to be the final judge of what is credible. The spirit of the legislation makes it clear that the
police officer should have grounds for determining the reasonableness of complaint and that of the credibility of information and the foundation of suspicion upon some definite fact.
A democratic polity may, therefore, reasonably ask as to why our law-enforcement is plunging headlong into a legally indefensible course and with such disconcerting gusto? Are they acting at the behest of ill-advised personnel? Are our police doing things they ought not to do or refraining from doing things they ought to do?
In a democratic set-up, the members of the police must be made to
realise that they are not above the law but subject to it like all other citizens and all their actions have to be supported on ground of legality when challenged before a court of law. The question is how do we do that? One way of ensuring that would be to question police indiscretions and excesses, specially the major ones, in court.
As has been mentioned hereinbefore, the legal authority and responsibility to arrest on suspicion is personal, so each individual officer must be made to account for rash and indiscriminate arrest, if so proved. To be more specific, a wrongful arrest of graver type should make the arresting officer liable to a charge of wrongful confinement under the penal law of the country. Therefore, if the authority
arranges to commence criminal proceedings for wrongful arrest, the wrongdoers in enforcement outfit would get the message and hopefully, rash and illegal actions will be on the decrease. All segments of the judiciary have to assert themselves.
Our apex court has already given a number of procedural and administrative guidelines in respect of arrest under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This has to be followed up in right earnest by issuing strictures and where appropriate by arranging to institute criminal proceedings against delinquent officers. One or two criminal convictions of wayward police officers would have a salutary effect. The fear of authority needs to be instilled.
For their part, the senior police officers should be able to prove that law observance by the police is the best form of law enforcement in a democratic country under the rule of law. They should be ready to carry out the behest of law at any cost.
The concept of legal aid to the poor in criminal cases should be enhanced on a war footing. This step will reduce the possibility of wrongful confinement and false incrimination in offences. NGO activism should be encouraged to keep a close watch on police indiscretions, specially the arrest on suspicion. Simultaneously, investigative journalism should expose gross misuse of arresting power.
Claims for damages caused by wrongful arrest should be instituted by activating the law in this regard. There should be no bar in fixing the civil liability caused by wrongful arrest. That would be a damper to highhandedness.
Last but not least, we have to realise that the right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but includes within its ambit, the right to live with dignity.
The writer is a columnist for The Daily Star.