A Classic case of illegal detention under
Goondas Act during Jaya regime
HC awarded a monetary compensation for the damage and suffering
undergone by the detenu
Jayalalitha’s
regime in Tamil Nadu have acquired notoriety for blatant misuse of power,
indiscriminate and illegal arrests and detentions and suppression of all
constitutional rights. As Chief Minister if Jayalalitha is bent on foisting
false case and invoke preventive detention laws to arrest and detain her
political opponents, the entire official machinery and police force get
corrupted and adopt her modus operandi for their own ends.
Here is a
classic case of an inspector of police, for ransom, arresting an innocent man,
foisting false cases against him and illegally placing him under Goondas Act
with the connivance of his superior officials and the District Collector,
during the previous regime of Jayalalitha, only to be acquitted by the High
Court which also awarded him monetary compensation payable by the officials for
the damage and suffering undergone by him. The poor gentleman whose rights were
invaded by the police of the cruel regime was Thameem Ansari. Here is his
story:
The police
have concocted cases, out of thin air, complete with damning
"evidence", and, in one of those cases, managed to keep a man in jail
for 6 months under the Goonda's act. The only reason the truth ever came out in
that case, was because the police made a mistake, and a tenacious defense
attorney brought it to the attention of two honest High Court judges...
Thameem Ansari
spent 6 months in Vellore Central prison as a bootlegger under the Goonda's
act. His story, detailed in a number of press accounts, as well as in the High
Court judgement of his case, is instructive of the way law enforcement worked
under ADMK regime. There's an interesting twist at the end of the story -- a
celebrity surprise, shall we say? We hope that's enough of a teaser to keep you
reading.
It was late
November 16 and 17, 2003 around midnight. Thameem Ansari was sound asleep in
bed when the knock came at the door. Must be someone whose car broke down,
thought Thameem. Over 25 years, he had built a good name for his thriving
auto-repair business. He secured his lungi tightly as he walked to the door.
It was
Chengelpet Inspector J Sivakumar. He told Thameem to put on a shirt and come
with him. Oh, and bring your cell phone, he instructed. Luckily, a neighbor saw
Thameem leaving in the police jeep. He and Thameem's uncle followed it to the
station, one on his Yamaha motorcycle and the other in his Maruti van. The jeep
was inside the gate, so they returned home.
The next day,
when his family went to enquire after Thameem, the good Inspector demanded 1
lakh rupees for his release. When they pleaded that wasn't possible, Inspector
Sivakumar said he would settle for a Toyota Qualis van in lieu. That was his
final offer. Otherwise, he warned, I'll have your husband booked under the
Goonda's Act and have him thrown in jail for a full year. Before Thameem's
family and friends could leave the station, the inspector had his constables
take their vehicles, a Yamaha motorcycle and a Maruti van.
The police did
exactly as they had promised. After all their CM had shown the way for booking
people disliked by her: place some narcotic drug or ganja and arrest. They
scripted a case, casting Thameem as villain. It wasn't just an arbitrary
accusation. They had incontrovertible evidence to prove the charges.
Eyewitnesses had seen Thameem drive up in broad daylight to an abandoned Yamaha
motorcycle in his Maruti van and load 3 bottles of spurious alcohol from it.
When the police stopped him and inspected the van, they found it full of
bottles of bootleg liqour, that smelled so foul, it made Inspector Sivakumar's
eyes and nostrils burn. Forensic examination of the liquid proved it was spurious
liqour. They arrested Thameem the bootlegger, and seized the two vehicles. It
didn't take long for Thameem to confess everything during police interrogation.
Afterwards, Thameem had, through his family, tried to influence senior officers
to let him off the hook. The police had cell phone records to prove it.
It was an
open-and-shut case. Uncontradicted "eye-witness" statements,
"forensic analysis" of the seized liqour, the "seized vehicles"
(laced, perhaps with traces of spirit) and even a signed "confession"
-- that was good enough for the sessions court. The court twice denied Thameem
bail on the basis of this "solid" evidence. Then how to prolong the
detention without bail? Again CM Jaya had shown the way: Slap Goonda’s Act. The
District Collector of Kanchipuram didn't hesitate a bit to slap the Goonda's
Act on Thameem. You see, even though he had no prior record, more than one
charge arose from the present case.
"Eye-witness
testimony", "confessional statements", "forensic
evidence", "cell phone records", "seized vehicles".
Does any of this sound familiar?
Where the
story fell apart was in the Madras High Court. You see, Thameem's lawyer
decided to do his own investigation. He decided to get the original bills for Thameem's
mobile phone from Airtel. At first, the police blocked this. But, Thameem's
attorney persisted. He sent a legal notice to Airtel, and forced them to send
the original cell phone records, which were a bit different from the ones the
police presented as evidence.
Thameem's
lawyer set to call up each of the numbers on the Airtel bill that occurred
after Thameem was taken into custody. And you know what he discovered? Many of
them were to Inspector Sivakumar's superiors. Of course, that only went to
substantiate the prosecution claims that Thameem or his family sought to
influence senior officers. But, in between all these, there were a number of
calls to one particular private residence. It took a lot of footwork, but he
finally figured out to whom the calls were placed: Inspector Sivakumar's
ex-wife and his two children.
The High Court
judges saw through the whole charade. The Inspector had been the one making the
phone calls to his superiors and to his children. And everyone else -- the
other policemen witnesses, the prosecutor, the District Collector, they had all
played along.
Sivakumar
emphasized one thing in his defense. He had only acted on orders from his
superiors, who were fully apprised at each step of the way. And the fact of the
matter is, this must be so. For, how else could such an elaborate set-up
sustain?
Someone had to
arrange to get a sample of spurious liqour from the Prohibition Wing's cache to
send to the lab. Someone had to corroborate the seizure of the bootleg and van,
and arrange for the eye-witness testimony. Some other policemen had to
corroborate the interrogation, and get Thameem's signature on blank pieces of
paper for his "confession". Someone with clout had to make certain
that the District Collector and the lower court magistrates would toe the line.
Someone with authority had to intimidate the cell phone company, when the
defense started to make trouble.
A measly
Inspector and two constables couldn't possibly acheive all this on their
own. So, who do you think Inspector
Sivakumar called first after he requisitioned Thameem Ansari's phone? It was
the private cell number of an Additional District Superintendent of Police, in
the close books of Jayalalitha.
On May 2,
2003, The Madras High Court expressed dismay at the illegal detention of the
businessman for about six months, under the Goondas Act, by the police
inspector who demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the victim, and directed the Prohibition
and Excise Secretary, the Kancheepuram Collector and the inspector to pay him a
compensation of Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks.
Setting at
liberty B. Thameem Ansari of Tambaram, a Division Bench comprising Justice P.
Shanmugam and Justice S.K. Krishnan said: "The provisions of the
Preventive Detention Act have been misused, misapplied and used for a wrong
purpose... The personal rights of an innocent person have been seriously
infringed... The Government has got a duty to repair the damage done by its
officer to Ansari's rights".
The automobile
repair workshop owner was picked up by the inspector, Prohibition and
Enforcement Wing, at Anna Nagar in Chengalpattu, during midnight on November
16-17 on a `false' charge of bootlegging. The inspector demanded payment of Rs.
1 lakh from his relatives, failing which, he threatened, he would detain Ansari
under the Goondas Act for one year. The inspector started using Ansari's
cellphone also.
As the family
members decided not to meet the illegal demand, Ansari was formally arrested
and remanded to custody. His bail petitions were dismissed twice, and the
Collector finally detained him under the Goondas Act without even disposing of
a pre-detention representation submitted by Ansari's wife. As per the grounds
of detention, he was a `bootlegger' and was arrested when he was carrying
illicit liquor on the national highway opposite the Vandalur zoo. Meanwhile,
the detenu's father, M.A. Badrudeen, moved a habeas corpus petition.
Pointing out
`glaring defects' and describing it as an extraordinary case of misuse of the
provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, the judges said "a mechanical
detention order had been passed, depriving the detenu of valuable fundamental
right guaranteed to him".
"Even a
cursory reading of the grounds of detention would make clear that there are no
materials or basic facts for arriving at the subjective satisfaction to hold
that the detenu is a bootlegger... The seizure mahazar and the confession
statement are all attested by inspector J. Sivakumar and two constables. There
are no independent witnesses. Except the confession statement, not an iota of
evidence is available for linking the detenu with the crime. It is unbelievable
that on a busy national highway, opposite the Vandalur zoo, no independent
witnesses were available. On this slender and doubtful material, the whole case
of preventive detention is based.''
"We are
concerned with the conduct of the inspector in obtaining a signed confession
statement contrary to Section 162 Cr.P.C, and it appears the blank paper signed
by the detenu was utilised and the contents were filled up for the purpose of
the case or the detenu was forced to sign on a marked place," the judges
observed.
Citing the
call summary obtained from Airtel, the Bench said the inspector had tampered
with even the telephone bill, and the correct bill was furnished only after a
legal notice was served.
On the
Collector's role, the judges said, "we have no hesitation holding that the
order of detention is illegal and passed with no basic materials available, in
an arbitrary manner. The detaining authority would not have passed this order
had he applied his mind to the facts of the case. Before the guaranteed and
safeguarded rights of a person are taken away, there should be a proper
application of mind to facts and law".
"We find
that the constitutional and legal rights of the detenu had been invaded and the
resultant detention cannot be washed away by the order of revocation, and
therefore, even though we cannot technically set aside the order of detention,
this is a fit case to award a monetary compensation for the deprivation of the
detenu's personal liberty and the damage and the suffering he had
undergone".
The old saying
‘As is the King, so are the people’ has to be interpreted during Jaya regime as
“As is the Chief Minister, so are the Police and official machinery.”
No comments:
Post a Comment