INDIA: Local police in West Bengal continuing their corrupt practices

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from MASUM, a local human rights organisation based in West Bengal, India regarding two cases where the local police in the state are involved in corrupt and questionable practices. The two cases below not only shows how the local police as an institution functions in a completely chaotic manner in that state, but also the arbitrary fashion in which things are done in the name of maintaining law and order in West Bengal.

CASE DETAILS:

Case 1:

On May 18, 2007 three officers from Barangar Police Station arrested Sirajul Sana from the Wireless Ground near a place called Ambagan in Kolkata. The officers were in plain cloths. Sirajul is 21 years old. Sirajul is a rag picker and he was passing through the place when he was picked up. He was asked to board a three-wheeler in which the officers were traveling and was taken to the Barangar Police Station.

At the police station Sirajul met his brother Ajarul who was also detained at the station. Ajarul is a boy aged 15 years. Sirajul also came to know that his brother is in custody since 6am the same day. Ajarul was taken into custody when he was collecting rags near the police station. In fact the police officers did not arrest him, but was asked to come inside the station compound and to wait till the Officer-in-Charge came to the station.

On the same day the police registered a petty case against the brothers. In the charge sheet the Ajarul’s age was recorded as 18 to show that he is an adult. The police has also recorded that their father is from Bangladesh and is not an Indian citizen. Both were then detained in the lockup.

Sirajul had Rupees 10 [1USD is Rupees 40] with him. He requested an officer at the station to take that money and to inform his parents about the detention and also asked the officer to buy local cigarette for the officer in gratitude. The officer after a while returned spending Rupees three and gave back Rupees seven to Sirajul informing him that he could not contact Sirajul’s parents as the number was engaged. Sirajul then asked several other officers to inform his parents about his arrest. But none of them obliged. According to the domestic law, the detainee must be informed for what reason the person is being arrested and also one of his relatives or a friend must be immediately informed about the arrest with details regarding the place of detention.

Later both Sirajul and Ajarul were taken to the Napara Hospital for medical checkup. They were taken along with other detainees. On their way to the hospital also Sirajul requested the officers to inform his and his brother’s arrest to his parents. But the officers informed him that they would do so when they return from the hospital. At the hospital when Sirajul was being examined by the doctor he informed the doctor that he is suffering from some ailment to his heart and also had stomach problems. The doctor at this point raised doubts regarding Ajarul’s age. But Ajarul could not inform his real age to the doctor because he was threatened by the police officer who was inside the consultation room.

When they were entering the police van to return from the hospital, an officer slapped Sirajul and asked why he lied to the doctor. Sirajul did not replay anything but kept asking the officer to inform his parents about his arrest. On their way back Sirajul was allowed to contact his parents and inform them regarding the arrest.

By about noon Sirajul and Ajarul were taken to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court at Barrackpore where they were released on bail. Before taking them to the court, the police took their thump impression.

Mr. Rabindranath Jana, the Sub-Inspector of Police when contacted by MASUM informed MASUM that the arrest, detention and registering a patty case was because the police wanted to control crime in the locality. The officer also informed MASUM that he had warned Sirajul and Ajarul not to be found anywhere in the locality. It appears that random arrest and registering false petty cases against the poor, particularly those who make a living by collecting rags is a way to prevent crime. This is possible because the poor do not have a means to complain and the police officers know that they could get away with anything they do against the poor.

In the Indian law these acts are not justified. As evident from this case, two persons were arrested, charged with false cases, accused of being criminals and produced in court. According to the law, a minor should not be produced in regular court and must be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Case 2:

Ms. Shefali Pailan was a domestic maid working for Mr. Dilip Kumar Pal and his family. Shefali was working with the Kumar family for several years. On July 17, 2007 some gold ornaments were found missing from the Kumar’s house. By the time the ornaments were found missing Shefali had retuned home. Kumar and some members from his family went to Shefali’s house and questioned her suspecting Shefali. Shefali informed them that she did not have any clue about the ornaments and allowed them to search her house if they entertained any further doubt.

Later Mr. Dilip Pal lodged a complaint regarding the incident at the Purba Jadavpur Police station. On July 18, 2007 at about 7.30pm three police officers from the Purba Jadavpur Police Station arrived at Shefali’s house and with force took Shefali to the police station. All mandates to be followed while arresting a person were violated when Shefali was taken into custody.

At the police station, it is alleged that the police pressured Shefali to confess that she is responsible for the theft. In the meanwhile a women’s rights organisation came to know about the incident and tried to intervene in the case. The next day when the local activists tried to intervene in the case, the police informed the activists that they have done nothing wrong and required Mr. Dilip Pal to come to the police station and withdraw the complaint he had filed. Dilip Pal later came to the police station and withdrew the complaint and Shefali was released. Before she was released, she was asked to sign a statement where there was no reference to the detention.

From this case, again what is evident is that when a complaint is made and if the accused is a poor person, the police never follow the procedure. In Shefali’s case had the police received a complaint against her what they should have done is to investigate the case. However, the attempt was to arrest the accused on the first place and try to force a confession.

In both the above cases what is evident is the callous manner in which the local police are engaged in maintaining law and order in the state. This however is not the fault of the police alone. The local police functions in such manner because they are allowed to continue working breaching all procedural mandates.

The Supreme Court of India has in several occasions directed the police in India not to breach law and has in fact laid down what the police is expected to do while investigating, arresting and detaining a person. However none of these mandates are followed by the police because there are no mechanisms that function to prevent breach of law committed by the police. There is no action by the Supreme Court itself against alleged actions by the police where the police have directly violated law and the mandates of the court.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to authorities in West Bengal asking them to intervene in instances where the local police are openly violating law. The victims in both the above cases must be adequately compensated for their suffering.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER