In a democracy, it is not appropriate for any person or organization to have the right to tajbeez. It leads the concerned person or organization to make arbitrary decisions. Get used to the use of power and unresponsiveness. Those who raise questions in the society about the activities of related persons or organizations, are criticized. But there is no legal basis to counter.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
In any society there is diversity of people's attitudes. Therefore, in every society, there are works of public interest, there are also works that harm individuals or society. Illegality and crime also happen. In order to investigate such incidents and bring those involved to action, the agencies involved in the investigation follow the wave of accusations, suspicions or evidence.
Take control and investigate. This is all a natural and regular process. But the dual behavior of Nepal Police, an agency that investigates crimes, when arresting the accused and whether to handcuff them or not, is unnatural. His style is 'whimsical'. It needs to be consistent. Consistency can only be achieved through clear provisions in laws or standards.
A person arrested by the police for investigation of a crime is usually handcuffed. But not everyone gets it. In the absence of any law or clear standards, two-tiered styles have been adopted. If the person who has been arrested cannot escape or escape, if he cannot assault or attack, the police will handcuff him after assessing issues such as gangsterism and criminal background. But such an assessment is only made by the police, he does not have the legal basis to confirm it. In other words, the handcuffs used by the police depend on their description.
However, the Prison Act 2079 mentions general provisions about this. For example, while in prison, while in hospital during treatment for severe or complex disease, during the hearing of the related case or when he is being interrogated by the court or taking a statement, he cannot be handcuffed inside the court.
Minors, the elderly, etc. cannot be handcuffed. But once a person who escapes from prison is arrested, escapes from prison or attempts to escape, he can be handcuffed. Similarly, those who break the walls/windows/doors of the prison, break them, etc. can also be handcuffed.
In the case of clear provisions in the law, there is no question about whether handcuffs will be used or not. Now, questions are being raised about the dual nature of the police in using their powers of investigation. Because, it has been established that he does not use handcuffs on those who have reached a high position in politics or those who have access to other areas and in the case of the rest, he treats the person based on his background and not on his faults.
Sometimes it is found that even in a case of the same nature, handcuffs are used or not on the arrested persons. Fake Bhutanese refugees are such an issue. Rayamazhi or Khan, who were arrested in this case, were not handcuffed, many others were. It is clear that the state itself keeps or treats the citizens in a dual status.
Discretionary right is the law that allows the police to do whatever they think is right. This is a problematic right in itself. Because, the perception of what is right or wrong by a person or a group depends on the scope of his understanding, his background, the crimes he has come to associate with, and his own mentality at the time. On the other hand, because the police officers who investigate different crimes are different, even if they differentiate between right and wrong, the objective basis is less and the subjective basis is more. Insistence or prejudice may play a role.
In this way, an entire organization can make different decisions at different times, with different characters, at different places. It is not appropriate that people accused of various crimes are arrested daily, many of them are handcuffed, but it is not appropriate to depend on the opinion of the police involved in the investigation. It needs to be consistent. Such uniformity can be maintained only through legal provisions.
In a democracy, it is not appropriate for any person or organization to have the right to vote. It leads the concerned person or organization to make arbitrary decisions. Get used to the use of power and unresponsiveness. Those who raise questions in the society about the activities of related persons or organizations, are criticized. But there is no legal basis to counter. He becomes morally weak. The power of tajbij received by the police in handcuffs is harming him.
He is questioning the same behavior he should adopt. Therefore, it is now necessary to create a compulsion to use handcuffs only on legal grounds, not at the discretion of individuals or organizations. As a result, there will be a change in the decision of the police. At the same time, there will be less questions on the police, the law will also give answers to the questions raised, the police will not be forced to keep answering specific incidents. When a person feels that he has been unlawfully handcuffed, he can seek a judicial remedy. Activities based on the legal ground strengthen the rule of law.
