How Supreme Court's 'handcuffing criminals' guideline a trouble for police

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Flipboard
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
How Supreme Court's 'handcuffing criminals' guideline a trouble for police
How Supreme Court's 'handcuffing criminals' guideline a trouble for police

New Delhi : In an alleged encounter of Kanpur-based gangster Vikas Dubey, things may have been different if the convicted man was handcuffed, which was not the case due to a Supreme Court guideline on 'handcuffing criminals'.

The Supreme Court has disapproved the practice tagging it as "inhuman, unreasonable, over harsh and arbitrary".

While the cops have been claiming that handcuffing criminals decreases the chances of them fleeing from custody, the apex court has from time to time issued a slew of directives on the procedure to be followed while handcuffing an undertrial, maintaining that the insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing.

According to an official statement by police on Vikas Dubey encounter, he snatched gun from an injured police official after his car met with an accident and tried to flee from the site.

Six policemen, including two from the Special task Force, were hurt in the accident and the exchange of fire around 6 am, an official said.

With this incident, the debate over handcuffing criminals while taking them from one place to another has ensued once again.

The apex court in 1995 held that minimal freedom of movement cannot be cut down by application of handcuffs or other hoops. It had categorically stated that handcuffing of prisoners without judicial consent was illegal.

"We clearly declare - and it shall be obeyed from the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jailwarder - that the rule, regarding a prisoner in transit prison house and Court house, is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have indicated earlier will be restraints with irons to be justified before or after," the apex court said.