An accused can be handcuffed in only extreme circumstances - Karnataka High Court

Case: Suprit Ishwar Divate v State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that handcuffing an accused person is only appropriate in extreme circumstances. A person arrested cannot normally be handcuffed, said Justice Suraj Govindaraj.

An arresting officer is required to record the reasons for handcuffing, which must withstand scrutiny by the Court. The HC, therefore, ordered the State to pay ₹2 lakh compensation to the petitioner, who claimed illegal handcuffing and detention due to which loss of reputation took place even before he was proven guilty.

In addition, the Court directed that all police officers entitled to arrest a person be equipped with body cameras with microphones so that the manner of arrest can be recorded.

BACKGROUND

The petitioner, a law student, sought compensation of ₹25 lakh after he was arrested in connection to criminal cases registered against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner claimed that he was paraded through a market in handcuffs by the police thus, causing damage to his reputation and violating his fundamental rights.

HELD

The HC placed reliance on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Shri Kisan v State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that the strict liability principle should be applied for unnecessary handcuffing of an accused.

Therefore, the Court found that handcuffing should only take place if there was a possibility of the accused escaping custody, causing harm to himself or others. In this case, the single judge concluded that the arresting officer violated the law and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to compensation.