The two Raghvir Nagar residents -- 18-year-old Gangu and 22-year-old Vinod -- were arrested by the Rajouri Garden police yesterday in connection with four theft cases. They were remanded to a day's police custody and produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Harish Dudani today who remanded them to judicial custody till July 9.

Witnesses said that it was a horrific sight as one undertrial jumped, dragging the other with him. The police constable who was holding on to them also suffered injuries. The constable let go, but the chain of the handcuff got caught in the railing of the first-floor balcony, leaving the two swinging in an almost macabre motion. They both finally fell on the wooden roof of the lunch room, before crumbling in a heap on the floor.

Gangu was seriously injured, with wounds on his throat which was possibly slashed by a ceiling fan. The police rushed downstairs and dragged the two to hospital, leaving a bloody trail on the dusty floor.

While there was absolute confusion in the Central Hall where the undertrials fell, the lawyers who were eyewitnesses to the incident repeatedly pointed out the fact that the two were handcuffed.

The Supreme Court has laid down as a rule that handcuffs shall not be forced on a prisoner -- convicted or undertrial. According to Article 141 of the Constitution this judgement becomes the law of the land. A senior criminal lawyer said: ``This practise of handcuffing makes hardened criminals of petty theives. There has to be some dignity for those in custody.'' Yet, another bystander added, ``They jumped in order to escape. It was possibly not a suicide bid. So maybe the chains were justified.''

In 1995 (Citizens for Democracy vs State of Assam) the Supreme Court ruled that when the police ``have well-grounded basis for drawing a strong inference that a particular prisoner is likely to jump jail or break out of custody'' then they can ask the concerned magistrate for permission to handcuff the accused. ``Save in rare cases of a concrete proof regarding proneness of the prisoner to violence, his tendency to escape, he being so dangerous -- desperate and the finding that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available the magistrate may grant permission to handcuff the prisoner.'' When contacted, the concerned MM refused to comment.

The apex court also ruled: ``We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner -- convicted or undertrial -- while lodged in a jail anywhere the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to court and back.'' The apex court lays down implicitly that there is no compulsive need to fetter a person, and that it is ``sadistic, despotic and demoralising to humble a man by manacling him. Such arbitrary conduct surely slaps Article 14 on the face''.

Senior criminal lawyers say that there is a trade-off between the dignity of criminals and security concerns, adding that only hard-core criminals are usually handcuffed. Senior advocate Dr Surat Singh said: ``If it was just a theft case then this is a violation of human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.''