Detention of senior citizen for shouting at bailiff shocks SC

April 20, 2015 01:21 am | Updated 01:21 am IST - NEW DELHI:

The arrest of a 66-year-old man and his incarceration for 91 days without bail for “raising his voice” at a court bailiff who came to deliver possession notice of a disputed property, left the Supreme Court shocked at the manner in which a citizen could lose his freedom in the blink of an eye.

Little did Bhanudas of Shevgaon district in Maharashtra know that he would spend over three months in prison for “shouting” at the court bailiff in exasperation. Mr. Bhanudas said he had been fighting in the court for the property since 1991.

His petition for bail in the Supreme Court records his exact words to the bailiff: “You cannot remove the wall as this place belongs to me.”

Mr. Bhanudas was arrested the same day, January 13, 2015 and charged under Section 353 (criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty) of the Indian Penal Code, which carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment or fine.

His bail application the next day was rejected by the Magistrate who said the senior citizen “created a hurdle” in the cause of justice. A second application for bail before the Sessions Judge was also rejected. This time, the judge said his behaviour amounted to contempt of court.

After the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court also rejected his bail plea, he moved the apex court.

Taken aback by the treatment meted out to an elderly person, a Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and Kurian Joseph on Friday grilled the Maharashtra counsel, asking on “what authority are you detaining a 66-year-old man for 91 days for raising his voice?”

“Every day, we are faced by this soul-searching question about the State detaining persons ... Tell us, how could you leave this man behind bars for 91 days?” Justice Joseph asked.

“Don’t take things beyond a certain level,” Justice Dave warned the State.

Justice Joseph pointed out that Section 353 gave an option of fine as punishment.

“Don’t you know when there is an option of fine as punishment, the first choice should be to order payment of fine and not imprisonment ... What have you done here?” Justice Joseph asked.

The Bench then immediately ordered Mr. Bhanudas to be released on bail.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.