The Gujarat High Court has sought a complete timeline from the police after a contempt petition alleged that a 16-17-year-old boy was unlawfully detained, subjected to custodial violence and publicly paraded in connection with a liquor case. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
The petition concerns allegations that the minor was arrested on June 21 and kept in police custody for three consecutive days. According to the petitioner’s submissions, the boy was allegedly detained three times under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was not lawfully released within the permitted period.
The petitioners also alleged that the boy was beaten in custody and suffered injuries from sharp objects or blows on different parts of his body. The allegations were made by the boy’s father, who claimed that his son had been subjected to inhuman treatment while in police custody. The source report did not identify the police personnel accused or provide an independent medical finding.
The contempt petition further alleged that the boy was publicly paraded. The petitioners argued that public beating and parading of accused persons are prohibited under directions issued by the Supreme Court and that such conduct amounts to a violation of human rights and the dignity of an accused person.
During the hearing, the police reportedly defended their position by arguing that the boy had been granted bail and that, for this reason, the allegation of assault did not arise. The police also apologised before the High Court after the petition was filed, according to the report.
The petitioners questioned whether a police apology after a public procession could prevent similar incidents in the future. They argued that wearing a uniform does not place police officers above the law and that public humiliation cannot be treated as an acceptable policing method.
The High Court has asked the police to submit all details from the beginning of the incident until the boy’s release. The information sought includes the exact time of arrest, the duration and legal basis of each period of custody, and the sequence of events leading to the alleged public procession.
The case places the court’s scrutiny on a basic accountability question: whether the police followed the legal safeguards governing detention, especially when the person involved was a minor. The court has not, at this stage, recorded a final finding on the allegations reported in the petition. Further proceedings are scheduled for Thursday, when the police timeline and related details are expected to be placed before the court.
