The issues I am posing are: 1. In a mango republic like ours, why should there be any discrection permitted to the police whether or not they may convert a complaint into an FIR. 2. Why should there be discrection permitted to the courts to allow anticipatory bail to any person required for interrogation and / or arrest. Why should not everyone be automatically permitted that loophole OR why should noone be permitted that loophole. 3. Why should certain types of citizens, mostly burecrats and politicians enjoy imunities / protection / special treatment under Single Point Directive, when the general citizens do not enjoy that privilage. (Sajjan Kumar: shielded for 2 or 3 decades!! And dozens more.) 4. And, I may add, why are the judeges not accountable in the real sense of the word? After all, they have not exactly held their heads up high in recent years. Victor.
--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Arun <[email protected]> wrote: From: Arun <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] The contra-constitution provision for Anticipatory Bail To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 3:24 AM Reference comments from Sarabjit . I am not going to enter into a debate on this issue . Regardless of earlier SC directives and now reported Home Ministry circulars, I have always maintained the position that the Police should take action as per the merits of the case and question the parties complained against before they register any FIR and take punitive measures like arrest etc . But with a qualification that this does not relate to heinous offences . Of course, I am fully aware of 154 and 157 , my discussions were on post FIR arrest related procedures . However, regardless of stated position in the law and directives, it is honesty , integrity and competence of the S.H.O. or I.O. that is of paramount importance at the end of the day . Dr Arun Agrawal --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@ ...> wrote: > > Friends: > We have a number of contra-constitution provisions like Single Point Directive, Anticipatory Bail, etc. that provide extra-constitutiona l protection to the powerful and mighty, and discriminate against the ordinary citizen. > When there is a prima-facie case made out by way of FIR against any person where the concerned authorities need to take into custody and investigate such persons, why should he have the protection of Anticipatory Bail? I mean, is it not contrary to the needs of law that the person can evade his arrest / interrogation because he can put together the resources to apply for Anticipatory Bail? > I think there is no civilised nation that has such provisions like Anticipatory Bail on its books. However, what they do have is a very stringent pre-arrest criteria to be fulfilled before an (any) arrest can be made. Such a sysytem is non discriminatory and does not make mockery of the justice system. There is all the more reason in a 23rd world and banana republic .... I mean mango republic country like ours to do away with such extra-constitutiona l provisions and bring to account all, not just the under dog. > Victor. >
