Reference comments from Sarabjit .
I am not going to enter into a debate on this issue . Regardless of
earlier SC directives and now reported Home Ministry circulars, I have
always maintained the position that the Police should take action as per
the merits of the case and question the parties complained against
before they register any FIR and take punitive measures like arrest etc
. But with a qualification that this does not relate to heinous offences
.
Of course, I am fully aware of 154 and 157 , my discussions were on post
FIR arrest related procedures .
However, regardless of stated position in the law and directives, it is
honesty , integrity and competence of the S.H.O. or I.O. that is of
paramount importance at the end of the day .
Dr Arun Agrawal
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Friends:
> We have a number of contra-constitution provisions like Single Point
Directive, Anticipatory Bail, etc. that provide extra-constitutiona l
protection to the powerful and mighty, and discriminate against the
ordinary citizen.
> When there is a prima-facie case made out by way of FIR against any
person where the concerned authorities need to take into custody and
investigate such persons, why should he have the protection of
Anticipatory Bail? I mean, is it not contrary to the needs of law that
the person can evade his arrest / interrogation because he can put
together the resources to apply for Anticipatory Bail?
> I think there is no civilised nation that has such provisions like
Anticipatory Bail on its books. However, what they do have is a very
stringent pre-arrest criteria to be fulfilled before an (any) arrest can
be made. Such a sysytem is non discriminatory and does not make mockery
of the justice system. There is all the more reason in a 23rd world and
banana republic .... I mean mango republic country like ours to do away
with such extra-constitutiona l provisions and bring to account all, not
just the under dog.
> Victor.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment