MADURAI
Taking into account the large number of custodial death cases being reported in Tamil Nadu, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday observed that corrective and reformative measures had to be introduced in government departments and custodial deaths should be eradicated.
Dismissing the bail petition filed by suspended Inspector of Police S. Sridhar, the main accused in the case of custodial deaths of trader P. Jayaraj and his son J. Benicks in Sattankulam, Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that people were afraid to enter police stations. An ordinary citizen was not being treated properly .
The court observed that registering of false cases had to be looked into seriously, and serious action must be taken against filing of false cases, the judge said.
The court suo motu impleaded the Director General of Police (DGP) in the case and directed him to issue a consolidated circular in this regard. The rights of the complainant had to be displayed at all police stations in a visible and legible manner, both in Tamil and English, and CCTV cameras installed had to cover the entire area, the judge said.
Further, the court said the CCTV cameras should always be in a working condition.
During the course of the hearing, Assistant Solicitor General L. Victoria Gowri opposed the grant of bail to Sridhar. She submitted that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation and tried to flee following the incident. However, this was denied by the counsel appearing for the accused.
The ASG further submitted that the CBI had filed a chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and the investigating agency was continuing the probe in order to find out if there was a larger conspiracy in the case.
Taking cognisance of the submissions, the court observed that two people were tortured in a brutal manner in the police station. The petitioner was a policeman and an influential person and the eyewitnesses in the case were his subordinates. There was a possibility of the accused influencing witnesses if he was enlarged on bail.
The gravity of the offence was severe in nature and there was a danger of the accused fleeing, if out on bail. Also, there was another case against him. Prima facie, a case had been established against him, the court observed and dismissed the bail petition.
