छिनतई होती रही और सामने से चली गई पुलिस.....

BIHAR HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
9, Bailey Road
File No BHRC/COMP. 552/09
Case of BAL GOVIND PRASAD
This proceeding was initiated on the complaint of Md. Kausar Nadeem,
a human rights activist and member of the Amnesty International of India.
The complaint is about the death of one Bal Govind  Prasad of village Bar
within Sherghati P.S. of Gaya district on 10.4.2009 in rather unfortunate
circumstances.
 Before adverting to the contents of the complaint it may be mentioned
that copy of the complaint was sent to I.G. Patna who submitted the report of
the D.I.G. of Police Magadh Range dated 23.7.2010. Copy of the said report
was sent to the victim’s son Anugrah Prasad to which he submitted his
response. The matter was then fixed for oral hearing which was held on
27.12.2010. While Anugrah Prasad appeared in person, S.P. (City) Gaya, Shri
Daljeet Singh appeared on behalf of the Administration.
 Admitted facts of the case are that on 10.4.2009, Bal Govind Prasad,
who was ill, was being taken to the Clinic of Dr. S.K. Dubey at Gaya on a
tempo BR 2E -9640 for consultation and treatment. When the tempo reached
near Tekna Farm it was stopped by the officials present there as the same
was required for election duty. As per the D.I.G.’s report, the tempo was
released by the Magistrate on the assurance of Anugrah Prasad that after
dropping the patient i.e. Bal Govind Prasad at the doctor’s clinic, the vehicle
would be taken to Sports Ground (in the campus of A.N. College at Gaya), but
on the way Bal Govind Prasad died near the Sports Ground which led to
protests by the public and the vehicle was not seized. As per Anugrah Prasad’s
version, after repeated remonstrations the officials allowed the tempo to
proceed. On their direction a police constable also boarded the tempo with
instructions to park it after dropping Bal Govind Prasad at the clinic. However,
when they reached near the clinic of Dr. S.K. Dubey, the police constable
asked for a sum of Rs. one thousand as consideration for getting the tempo
released and actually took sum of Rs. five hundred  from the driver and
another sum of Rs. two hundred from him (Anugrah Prasad). They were taken
to the Sports Ground in the A.N. College campus where the papers including
the driving license of the driver were seized by the Magistrate. The police
constable left the place leaving them high and dry. After sometime Bal Govind
Prasad’s condition deteriorated. They hired a rickshaw for going to the
doctor’s clinic. As soon as they came out of the Sports Ground, Bal Govind
Prasad became critical and died. When the public came to know about it they 2
resorted to agitation. In the process, the crowd damaged the tempo. At that
point of time, the Officer-Incharge of Rampur P.S.  came to that place. He
arranged another tempo by which the damaged tempo was also towed and
they reached home. He had to pay sum of Rs. eleven thousand on repairs of
the tempo. Besides he was also made to pay Rs. seven hundred to the
officials there. Another sum of Rs. one thousand was paid as fare for the other
tempo.
 S.P. (City) submitted that vehicles were being seized in exigency of
situation, namely, for election duty and the Administration had little choice
but to seize the vehicle in question. He also submitted that the seizures were
being effected on the direction of the Magistrate and the police had no
independent role. It was also submitted that Bal Govind Prasad was an old
man in his eighties. Admittedly, he was ill. He died a natural death and the
Administration can not be held responsible for his death.
 It would appear that most of the facts are undisputed. It is not in
dispute that Bal Govind Prasad was ill and being taken to Gaya for check-up
etc. on a tempo. It is also not in dispute that the tempo was intercepted by
the Administration for being seized for election duty. It is also the admitted
position that after remonstrations by Anugrah Prasad and others the vehicle
was allowed to proceed. However, as per the victim’s son, instead of doctor’s
clinic, the vehicle was taken to the Sports Ground  (Khel Parisar) in the A.N.
College Gaya campus where the papers including driving license were seized
by the Magistrate. The vehicle, thus, remained stranded. (Meanwhile, the
police constable accompanying them demanded and succeeded in getting
money from the driver as well as Anugrah Prasad.) At this point of time Bal
Govind Prasad developed complications and a rickshaw was hired for taking
him to the doctor’s clinic but no sooner than they  came out of the Sports
Ground, he died. It is clear that had the vehicle not been detained at the
Sports Ground and allowed to proceed to the doctor’s clinic, Bal Govind Prasad
could have lived. It is true that at the time of elections it becomes imperative
for the administration to get hold of vehicles for election duty and therefore
the act of the concerned officials in stopping the vehicle near the Tekna Farm
for being seized can not be faulted. But there was  no justification for
inordinately detaining the vehicle at the Sports Ground. The concerned
officials had let the vehicle proceed from Tekna Farm to the doctor’s clinic on
the understanding that after dropping Bal Govind Prasad the vehicle would
report at the designated place i.e. the Sports Ground in the A.N. College
campus – for which a police constable was also deputed, but the tempo was
taken to the Sports Ground instead of the doctor’s clinic and detained there.
The action – or want of it – reflects the insensitive attitude of the concerned 3
officials including the Magistrate on duty at the Sports Ground and the
concerned police constable. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said
that the administration played no role and was not responsible for the passing
away of Bal Govind Prasad. In the opinion of the Commission, it is a fit case in
which compensation should be awarded and suitable administrative action
should be taken against the concerned officials. It is to be kept in mind that
Anugrah Prasad was made to meet the cost of repairs of the tempo; he also
had to pay bribe to the police constable. Considering the age of the deceased
(he was reportedly 84 years of age) and the attending facts and circumstance,
the Commission is of the view that a monetary compensation of Rs. Seventy
thousand would serve the ends of justice.
 In the result, the Commission directs that the State Government do
pay sum of Rs. Seventy thousand to Anugrah Prasad which may be recovered
from the concerned officials in accordance with law. The Commission further
directs that suitable administrative action be taken against the concerned
officials, as above.
 Compliance report be submitted within eight weeks.
 Copy of the order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, District Magistrate/Senior S.P. Gaya and Anugrah Prasad, the
deceased’s son.
Justice S.N. Jha
Chairperson