Home dept asked to compensate businessman who was wrongly arrested

CHENNAI: The state human rights commission has recommended that the home department pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to a businessman in Choolaimedu who was arrested without taking his anticipatory bail petition order into consideration.
SHRC president Justice A S Venkatachalamoorthy gave the recommendation on a complaint filed by V James.
James said that when he was running his business at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli district in 2000, the Manavalakurichi police in Kanyakumari registered a case against him on false allegations.However, the police closed the case admitting a "mistake of fact" and informed this to the high court when he filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail. Recording the police statement, the high court disposed of the petition saying no orders were necessary.
But the police reopened the case and arrested him on November 7, 2006, he said,
He showed the high court's order in his anticipatory bail petition but the police did not consider it, James said. He came out on bail after three days. James prayed to the commission to take action against the police officials concerned for violating his human rights and to order that they pay him a compensation.
In their counter, the then inspector and sub-inspector of Manavalakurichi police station said they were not aware of any order as shown by the complainant as they were posted to the station much later. He was arrested only on a warrant issued by a magistrate court in Kanyakumari as the complainant failed to appear before it in a case, they said.
On perusal, the commission said the police had not produced any order to show when the case was reopened and to say that summons were sent to the complainant and he had failed to appear. The complainant had denied being aware of the investigation pending against him after the high court order in his anticipatory bail petition, the commission said.
"The police officials did not verify the records and acted in haste and with a result the complainant was put to unnecessary hardships for which he has to be compensated suitably,'' it held.