5 Gujarat Police fined Rs 10,000 each in custodial plea

The court posted the matter for further hearing on January 17. (Representative)

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Monday fined five policemen Rs 10,000 for not resolving a dispute in time with a complainant who filed a petition alleging custodial torture and seeking action against them for contempt of court. Imposed a fine of Rs.

A division bench of Chief Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the matter was appropriate for framing of charges against the five policemen under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The court is hearing a plea against officials of a police station in Rajkot city for allegedly harassing her for violating the Supreme Court’s guidelines on custodial violence and in cases of rioting and bootlegging. He was also publicly paraded after his arrest. 2016.

It said that the respondents had expressed their desire to settle the dispute with the complainant during the last hearing, after which the court granted them time and deferred framing of charges.

When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the respondent police officials said that they are yet to establish contact with the complainant, who is presently lodged in Bharuch jail, to settle the dispute.

The court expressed surprise that a policeman could not contact the jailed person, and said it was not inclined to give them more time to frame the charges. It then agreed to give them more time, but only if they paid the cost of Rs 25,000 each.

The counsel for the defendants argued that the money was too high for policemen of the rank of constable and sub-inspector, and instead agreed to pay Rs.10,000.

“It is further done that the cost of Rs 10,000 shall be deposited by each of the accused in this court within three days from today. It is also clarified that no further adjournment shall be granted on any ground, and in case of dispute, settlement shall be made.” If the agreed parties are not reported, the charge will be decided on the same date,” it said.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on January 17.

(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)


Source link

What Do You Think About this News