§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Punjabhai Someshwar Bhatt, a vakil of the Bombay High Court, practising at Kaira, in the Bombay presidency, who was on the morning of the 17th August, 1911, illegally removed from his house at Kaira by Mr. Vincent, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Criminal Intelligence Department), Bombay City, and two of his subordinates, and detained by them in custody in various places until the afternoon of the following day, without warrant or authority; whether he is aware that grave allegations have been made by Mr. P. S. Bhatt respecting the pressure put upon him by these police officers to purchase his liberty by agreeing to give evidence against certain high officials of the Baroda State, such pressure taking the form of incessant questions and the employment of threats during a period of more than twenty-four hours; will he state whether any action has been taken or will be taken against the police officers concerned; and what steps will be taken to prevent the repetition of such action?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Secretary of State has received a report on the case. He is 1719W not aware of the allegations said to have been made by Mr. Poonjabhai Bhatt, and he cannot accept as well-founded those added by the hon. Member. Mr. Bhatt, who was charged with having taken part in the production and distribution of books proscribed by Government, was brought before a magistrate, who, on the evidence adduced, ordered him to execute a bond for good behaviour. Against this order Mr. Bhatt appealed to the High Court, who admitted him to bail. This ultimate decision on his case has not been reported. The Secretary of State has no reason to think that the police officers acted illegally or improperly, and deprecates most strongly the suggestion that he should accept as ground for official action a series of uncorroborated ex parte statements.