Detenues who have completed more than three years in Assam Detention Centers should Be released: Supreme Court

Bench of Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing the matter of foreigners kept in detention centers in Assam in the case of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr.. Court laid down the following conditions for the release of detenues who have completed more than three years of detention:

Execution of a bond with two sureties of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) each of Indian citizens;

Specification of a verifiable address of stay after release;

Biometric of his/her iris (if possible) and all ten fingerprints and photos shall be captured and stored in a secured database before release from the detention centres.

He or she shall report once every week to the Police Station specified by the Foreigners Tribunal;

He or she shall notify any change of his or her address to the specified Police Station on the same day, and ·

A quarterly report to be submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Border) to the Foreigners Tribunal regarding appearance of such released declared foreigner to concerned Police Station and in case of violation of condition, the DFN will be apprehended and produced before Foreigners Tribunal.

Court has further asked the State of Assam to place on record a detailed scheme, in consultation with the Gauhati High Court (on the administrative side), with regard to the constitution of Foreigners Tribunals including appointment of Members, staff etc.

It has also asked for record of such details as soon as possible while giving the State liberty to make a mention of the matter before the Vacation Bench. Matter is to be listed in the month of July unless mentioned otherwise by the counsel for the State.

Whether statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. can be treated as dying declaration?

The Supreme court observed that statement recorded by the I.O. can be treated as dying declaration under the provisions of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and is not hit by section 162 Cr.P.C.

( Pradeep Bisoi @ Ranjit Bisoi vs State of Odisha, Crl Appeal  1192/2018 decided on 10-10-2018)

Power of Court to monitor investigation

The magistrate on the application given by informant or suomoto pass an order for monitoring of  investigation being conducted by the police officer. Such a power is vested in the Magistrate by section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. where a Magistrate can pass order for registering  FIR and conducting the investigation.

In case of Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P. and others 2008(2) SCC 409, Supreme Court observed that “ the magistrate has very wide powers under section 156(3) to direct registration of FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to see that investigation is done properly though he himself cannot investigate.

Whether monitoring of investigation by the court will amount to interfering in the investigation?

In case of Union of India  Vs Prakash Hinduja and anothers 2003 (6) SCC 195 , Supreme Court held that Magistrate has no power to interfere in the investigation conducted by the police. But in case of Sakir Vasu Supra the Supreme Court held that ratio of this decision would only apply when  proper investigation is being done by the police and if magistrate is satisfied that investigation is not being done properly he can certainly direct the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station to conduct the investigation properly and can further monitor the same.