Junagadh public flogging: HC issues notices to 32 cops in contempt plea

The application was moved by Jakir Yusufbhai Makwana (42), who is from the Siddi community — a Scheduled Tribe, and Sajid Kalamuddin Ansari (36). Both are currently lodged at the Junagadh district prison on allegations of rioting and stone-pelting that had allegedly taken place after demolition notices were issued to five Islamic religious places by the Junagadh civic body.

Seeking that contempt proceedings be initiated against the 32 police personnel for violating SC-issued guidelines in its judgement of DK Basu, the petitioners have submitted that “they were subjected to not only physical torture but were abused verbally on innumerable occasions on subject of their religion” during police custody. It has also been submitted that the applicants were threatened by the police “with dire consequences” to not complain about the alleged police atrocities, including the flogging incident, when produced before the magistrate.

On Monday, Advocate Anand Yagnik, on behalf of the victims, submitted before the court of Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengedey that the constant pressure built by police to withdraw the complaints “is an extended form of custodial violence” as the police threatened that they would “carry out bulldozer jurisprudence and destroy houses” if they failed to withdraw the complaints.
The two petitioners have alleged that they were flogged publicly by two police constables of the local crime branch — Nikunj Patel and Jagdishbhai Ahir — “to set an example”.

Seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the erring 32 police officials, the applicants have requested the court to direct for necessary departmental action and registration of an FIR for custodial violence. They have also demanded to direct the respondents to pay exemplary compensation for violation of the constitutional right of the applicants.

“At the time of production before…JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class), after the completion of remand on June 21, Makwana, along with other five accused — all major and not minor — mustered the courage to lodge their complaint to the Ld JMFC about the custodial torture, violence, public flogging and other incidents of threats given to him and other accused…JMFC directed medical examination of the applicant and others,” the application states.

Yagnik added that apart from the six adults, four other minors, too, before the magistrate on June 20, complained of custodial violence, including one being publicly flogged. Subsequently, the magistrate himself observed that he found marks of injury on their bodies.

It was further submitted that two police officials — inspector Vadher of A Division Police Station of Junagadh and one Sahil Sama, a police constable with the local crime branch — “visited all the six complainants” of custodial torture at the Junagadh Central Jail on June 22. The six were told by the two police personnel that “they would be freed from the jail and from all the allegations if the complaint of custodial violence is withdrawn by each of them”, the submission stated.

Following this, Makwana submitted that he signed a printed document without realising that it was meant for the withdrawal of the complaints filed by the six complainants. The four minors who complained of custodial torture were sent to Rajkot Special Home for boys in accordance with the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2015. On June 21, the four juveniles allegedly sent to Junagadh JMFC a “consent letter” by email to withdraw their complaint made against the district police for custodial violence. “It appears that the lawyers of the applicants were blackmailed by LCB Junagadh and respondent J.J Patel, the investigating officer in particular, and therefore, they were the captive audience trying to convince the applicants for an ulterior end for self-interest for let us say family interest. This is an extended form of custodial violence and requires action,” the application states.