You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Why the handcuffs are removed when an accused is presented before the Judge?

    We all know that when the police arrest an accused, third-degree methods for getting the right information is always enforced. Sometimes the accused is made to agree to crimes not committed to escape police excess inside the lockup and the accused would be warned not to reveal the excesses to the court. He will be brought up to the door of the court hall with handcuffs but the same is removed when the accused appear before the judge. Why the handcuffs are removed when the accused is presented before the Judge? Why do the judges never ask for police brutality inside the lock-up? And what about human rights?

  • #746437
    In a court, people are supposed to be stress-free and should be able to express freely the facts and they should never feel that they are under stress. If the person is in handcuffs, he will feel that he is under threat and they may not be able to talk freely. The chance of people running away from the court while the case is in progress is very less. These may be the reasons for removing the handcuffs.
    If the person complains about the treatment of the police, the court will ask for an explanation of the police for their behaviour. Recently an MP from AP complained that police has beaten him and the court asked for an explanation from the police.
    Definitely. human rights activists will come into the picture when a person is ill-treated by police unnecessarily. These we are seeing these people very active in many such issues.

    always confident

  • #746441
    The basic reason is that an accused is deemed to be innocent until the charges against him are proved. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had on many occasions directed that an accused or an undertrial should be handcuffed, when he is arrested, only if he is prone to be violent or is likely to escape from custody and the officer arresting him should put the reason for handcuffing him in black and white. The apex court had observed that a person, even though he is an accused or is an undertrial, has the umbrella of Constitutional rights over his head and should not be deprived of his rights as an individual.

    For your kind information, Magistrates/ Judges always ask an accused/ undertrial about his well being and whether he has been subjected to any third-degree methods by the police. The rights of an individual is a principal concern of any court and they do take due care to ensure that a person is not harassed unnecessarily.

    Let us not go by what we see in movies. They are exaggerated versions.

    'Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power'. -Lao Tzu

  • #746444
    When we talk about human rights, we will find that in our constitution, the court has been called the guardian of fundamental rights, from this one thing is certain that the court gives a guarantee to the human being for his rights. Some of the major criminals who have committed a horrific incident or have committed a heinous crime or are suspected may have been brought in handcuffs. The court does not always punish a criminal without proof or knowing the truth and does not take any decision without proving any wrong. Both the parties have the right to say the whole thing in the courts.

  • Sign In to post your comments