Human rights HANDCUFFED
He “walks” on his hands as he had lost both the legs at some point of time.
Yet, three policemen of the Chittagong Metropolitan Police (CMP) feared that Abul Hossain would escape from their custody.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. So they took him handcuffed to the court to produce him before it in connection with a drug peddling case.
That was in September last year.
This inhumane action by police triggered loud criticisms as handcuffing a physically challenged person is a clear violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
It also violated Police Regulation of Bengal. This action is also a criminal offence under the Torture and Custodial death (prevention) Act 2013, according to legal experts.
Facing the outcry, the CMP closed the three cops including a sub-inspector on charge of neglecting duty. The CMP commissioner announced actions would be taken against the trio following further investigation.
But nothing happened to them. No further punitive action was taken and they were posted in other police stations in the CMP areas.
"No departmental case was filed against them as no serious allegation was found against them in the investigation," Nirmalendu Bikash Chokroborty, additional deputy commissioner of CMP, told The Daily Star yesterday.
In August 2015, journalist Probir Sikder, who did not have a leg, was arrested in connection with a case filed against him under the Information and Communication Technology Act. He was handcuffed while he was taken to the court.
This incident also generated criticism. No action was taken against the policemen who handcuffed him.
There are many more incidents of police randomly handcuffing the accused.
In the most recent case, police handcuffed three Santals of Gaibandha who were injured and arrested in a case filed for attacking police with arrows during a clash on November 6.
Choron Soren, one of 42 people named by police in the case, is now under treatment at Rangpur Medical College Hospital (RMCH).
Cops shot him in the legs as he protested their brutality, he said from his hospital bed.
His fellow Santals later sent him to the hospital on the night of November 6.
The following morning, he found one of his hands handcuffed to the bed. He was arrested in the case and is in police custody since then.
Two other handcuffed Santals were receiving treatment at the RMCH and at National Institute of Ophthalmology in Dhaka.
Their handcuffs were only removed following the High Court's order yesterday.
A HC bench of Justice Obaidul Hassan and Justice Krishna Debnath issued the order following a writ petition filed by a Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua.
Asked about the ground for his petition, Barua said the three injured Santals under treatment at the hospital are unable to move on their own. They cannot go to the washroom without assistance but they were handcuffed by police to their beds.
"It's degrading behaviour to them. By handcuffing them, police violated the three Santals' fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution," he said.
The police broke their constitutional rights including protection of right to life and personal liberty as stipulated in article 32.
Article 35 (5) of the constitution also clearly states: "No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment."
"By handcuffing them, the three Santals were subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment," said jurist Shahdeen Malik.
Both Malik and Barua think those who were responsible for handcuffing the Santals have committed criminal offence and they should be punished under the Torture and Custodial death (prevention) Act.
The Supreme Court considers this law one of the finest legislations in Bangladesh to safeguard people from being subject to torture by the law enforcement agencies. It prohibits both mental and physical torture in any situation.
Police tortured the three Santals both physically and mentally by handcuffing them, observed Malik and Barua.
Police however has its own defence.
"They were handcuffed for the safety of policemen and also to make sure that they [detainees] could not escape," Ashraful Islam, Superintendent of Police of Gaibandha, told The Daily Star yesterday.
It was done, he claimed, according to the law.
Asked, SP of Rangpur, Mizanur Rahman said his policemen handcuffed two Santals as the Gaibandha police asked them to do so.
"Police use handcuffs so that criminals cannot escape from police custody," Mizanur told The Daily Star when asked if they could handcuff an injured person.
The law, however, does not support what they did.
Section 330 (a) of Police Regulations, Bengal, prohibits using strict measures by saying the use of handcuffs or ropes is often an unnecessary indignity.
It says: "Prisoners arrested by the police for transmission to a magistrate or to the scene of an enquiry, and also under-trial prisoners, shall not be subjected to more restrain than is necessary to prevent their escape. The use of handcuffs or ropes is often an unnecessary indignity."
Police, however, frequently tie the accused, particularly when they go for large scale arrest to foil street agitations.
Asked about the claims of the police of Rangpur and Gaibandha, Shahdeen Malik said: "Putting handcuffs on a seriously injured person is a clear manifestation of normalization of brutality by the law enforcement agencies."
"Everything indicates that we are going down the path of brutality and torture in most areas of life."
The incident of handcuffing three injured Santals took place four days before the Supreme Court released its full verdict on arbitrary abuse of powers by the law enforcement agencies.
The SC verdict, released on Thursday, strongly criticised police behaviour.
"On a look into the law and order situation, we have reasons to believe that it [law enforcement agencies] has forgotten its core value that it is accountable to the community it serves, and at the same time the prevention of crime is its prime operational priority."
The SC also directed magistrates to take action against errant police officers whenever they find infringement of the law against torture and death in police custody. "The magistrates shall not remain as silent spectators whenever they find infringement of this law and shall take legal steps against errant officers."
The Indian Supreme Court has long ago issued guidelines restricting use of handcuffs by police. In 1980, it ruled that the practice of routine handcuffing be strictly stopped forthwith.
"Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and unreasonable. It should be used only when the person is desperate, rowdy, or is involved in a non-bailable offence," it said.
"The only circumstance which validates incapacitation by irons --an extreme measure-- is that otherwise there is no other reasonable way of preventing his escape, in the given circumstances. Securing the prisoner being necessity of judicial trial, the State must take steps in this behalf. Heavy deprivation of personal liberty must be justifiable as reasonable restriction in the circumstances," the Indian SC said.
The Indian Supreme Court, and in different states in India, High Courts, very often take strong steps against police whenever they find violation of the Supreme Court's directives on handcuffing.
Comments