Telangana High Court issues notices to Home Dept, DGP on police highhandedness
The bench considering the gravity of the incident has taken suo moto PIL and directed the State to apprise the court with regard to feasibility of enactment of Advocates Protection Act.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed notices to the Home Department, the DGP, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Detective Inspector of Police (Borabanda) in a matter pertaining to high-handed behaviour of the Borabanda Police against an advocate.
The Division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao took up a suo moto PIL based on a representation submitted by the Bar Association, Kukatpally Courts as well as an English daily report published on August 20 detailing the attack on advocate. The said incident occurred on August 16 around 6:30 am when SI Sardar Jamal and police constables Srinivas Raj Nageshwar Rao and others raided a house in Banjara Nagar based on a complaint against the house owner. Advocate P Santosh, a tenant was allegedly roughed up by the police though he was not involved in the complaint against his landlord.
The representation also disclosed that the police barged into Santosh’s rented portion and verbally abused him and his wife. Despite his protest, he was allegedly dragged out of the house in the night in inappropriate dress and the incident was captured on CCTV footage that showed the police manhandling Santosh and his wife. The complaint further revealed that Santosh was taken to the police station, and details about how he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the police officers at the police station. It also said that Santosh’s senior had come to his rescue and helped his release from the station. It was pointed that he was advised to undergo immediate surgery at Gandhi Hospital.
The bench considering the gravity of the incident has taken suo moto PIL and directed the State to apprise the court with regard to feasibility of enactment of Advocates Protection Act. The court also observed that the matter needed consideration and directed the State to file a counter within four weeks.
