High court directs PGIMER medical board to examine ‘custodial torture’ victim
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today sought a “proper and non-partisan” affidavit from Mohali SSP on a petition filed by a man alleging custodial torture, electric shocks, and circulation of his nude video following his “abduction” from outside Sohana gurdwara by unidentified officials. The officer was also directed to do the “needful”.
Justice Kirti Singh also asked PGIMER director to constitute a medical board for examining the alleged victim. “The present case involves allegations of gross misconduct of the acting officials and in the opinion of this court, requires a detailed response qua the chain of events as they unfolded in actuality as also qua the alleged custodial torture that the petitioner was allegedly subjected to. As such, the SSP, Mohali is directed to do the needful and submit a proper and non-partisan response by way of an affidavit in the instant case,” Justice Kirti Singh asserted.
Issuing further directions, the court referred to the serious allegations “as they prima facie appear” before calling for the alleged victim’s thorough examination by the newly-constituted medical board for “any bodily injuries stated to be inflicted on his person and submit a report qua the same prior to the next date of hearing.”
Ropar District Jail Superintendent was directed to ensure that the petitioner was produced before the board on April 24. The matter will now be taken up on April 29 for the SSP’s affidavit and the board’s report.
The bench was hearing a petition seeking protection of life and liberty, quashing of the FIR registered in the matter on April 8 and transfer of investigation to an independent agency. The petitioner also prayed for a medical examination by an independent government hospital.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Bharat Bhandari, Vinay Yadav, Amandeep Singh, and Sushil K Bhardwaj. Among other things, they contended that the medical examination conducted post-arrest was perfunctory and meant only to feign compliance. They also referred to an order passed by the trial court on April 11, which noted visible injuries and directed a Civil Hospital’s SMO to constitute a medical board. But the petitioner was never taken for the examination, and instead, allegedly threatened with consequences if he insisted on undergoing it.
He was finally taken to the Civil Hospital on April 12 but wrote a statement refusing medical examination allegedly under threat. The petitioners contended that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest or provided the arrest memo or a copy of the FIR, rendering the arrest illegal.
