JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition with a two fold prayer. Firstly, it has been prayed that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for their release and secondly that they be awarded effective costs and damages for they were unjustifiably handcuffed. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Additional Advocate -General, Punjab had appeared on behalf of the respondents on January 10, 1994. It was pointed out by him that both the petitioners had been released on their furnishing bail bonds and that they were present in Court on their own. The prayer for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus was, thus, rendered infructuous. The case was, however, adjourned to enable him to file a reply to the petition. The needful was done. The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. S. Bains, has contended that the petitioners deserve to be compensated. Mr. Aggarwal has contested this.
(2.) WITH regard to the second grievance, it has been submitted in the affidavit filed by Mr. K. S. Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) Ludhiana, that on 6 -1 -1994 the petitioners were being produced in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in a case under TADA Act. Therefore, they were handcuffed. Even earlier also the petitioners were being produced before the court under handcuffs as and when produced under TADA Act, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, appearing for the respondents has pointed out that on account of peculiar situation prevailing in Punjab and the seriousness of the offence, the police had resorted to the act of handcuffing, the petitioners. The practice of handcuffing prisoners has been clearly deprecated by the Apex Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, . , AIR1980 SC 1535 , 1980 Crilj930 , (1980 )3 SCC526 , [1980 ]3 SCR855. It has been inter alia held that handcuffing is prima facie in human and, therefore, unreasonable, is over harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary. "it has been observed that "tangible testimony, documentary or other, or desperate behaviour geared to making good his escape, alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and fettering, and even this may be avoided by increasing the strength of the escorts or taking the prisoners in well protected vans. " Their Lordships have been further pleased to "mandate the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other 'irons' treatment and, if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this judgment. " This mandate of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has to be obeyed by everyone "from the Inspector General of Police. . . to the Escort Constable. "
(3.) IT is no doubt true that the petitioners are accused of an offence under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. However, there is not even an averment in the affidavit which may show that the petitioners had exhibited desperate behaviour or that they were geared to making good their escape. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents does not disclose any reason to justify the handcuffing of the petitioners.;