Thursday, December 31, 2009

[rti_india] Re: The contra-constitution provision for Anticipatory Bail


Dear Friends,

I am very sorry to say that there is considerable ignorance on the part of our members concerning registration of FIRs.

1) The concerned CrPC section is 154. Section 157 is for subsequent investigations.

2) Secondly all this business about "complaints being registered as FIRs" is media nonsense. As per the CrPC definitions - a "complaint is allegation made to a magistrate".

Being an expert on registration (and non-registration) of FIRs, I would be interested in knowing why the procedures for situations where a SHO does not register FIRs is impractical. Speaking for myself whenever (ie. on each and every occasion) I have availed those procedures the concerned SHO was relieved from his post between 10 to 14 days on at least 3 occasions when I pursued the matters to their logical conclusions.


--- In, "Arun" <arun_agrawal@...> wrote:
> In response to this analytical post by Victor .
> Actually, the entire system is flawed . Police register FIRs as per
> their whims and fancies and depending on what they are getting ( and
> from whom ) . One may see nothing wrong with the latest circular ( I
> cannot call it a directive) purportedly issued by the Home Affairs to
> the States to ensure that each and every complaint is treated as a FIR
> and registered accordingly . I recall that even the SC had done that
> quite sometime ago, so one has to wait and watch how the States would
> act this time .
> But all this apart, the system is corrupt to the core . Whatever rules
> may be prescribed and whatever amendments may be made in the CrPC, there
> will always be an element of discrection available to the Police to
> register FIR or not, or to make an arrest thereafter or not , leading to
> continued corruption and derailmnent of justice .
> The solution does not lie with issue of fresh "farmans" or amendments in
> the CrPC . 157(1) describes all the procedures quite clearly, that have
> been reiterated by Justice M N Venkatachalliah of SC in Joginder Kumar
> v/s State of UP and Ors .(1994) and Justice Markandeya Katju ( Judge at
> Allahabad High Court as he then was) writing on behalf of the Bench in
> Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.4861 of 2000 titled Ajeet Singh alias
> Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others(2004 ) .
> The need of the hour is to ensure that all these acts/procedures/rulling
> and directions are adhered to scruplously by the law enforcers .
> Dr Arun Agrawal
> > Friends:
> > We have a number of contra-constitution provisions like Single Point
> Directive, Anticipatory Bail, etc. that provide extra-constitutional
> 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-constitutional provisions and bring to account all, not
> just the under dog.
> > Victor.
> >



No comments:

Post a Comment