Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Gyanesh Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors - (High Court of Allahabad) (21 Sep 2015)

Compensation for youth tortured in police custody

MANU/UP/1325/2015

Criminal

In a case where the police illegally detained and tortured a young man who had applied for a position as a constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Allahabad High Court awarded five lakh rupees as compensation in his favour, while leaving the door open for further damages. Noting the brutality of treatment and grievousness of the injuries sustained by the youth, the Court did not mince its words, pronouncing “Custodial Torture is a calculated assault on human dignity and nothing can be more dehumanizing as the conduct of police…”

Relevant : D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0157/1997 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi & Ors. MANU/SC/0722/1995 Gauri Shanker S harma vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0132/1990

Tags : POLICE   CUSTODY   TORTURE   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved