T h e p e titio n er w a s s to p p e d at a c h e c k poin t a n d a llo w e d to g o h o m e . Later r e s p o n d e n ts (P o lic e/A rm y O fficers) h a d c o m e h o m e a n d o r d er e d h er to a c c o m p a n y th e m to th e M a ra d a n a P o lic e S ta tio n . S h e w a s not ta k en to th e P o lic e S ta tio n , but w a s forcibly ta k e n to a p la c e b e h in d th e c h e c k point a n d r a p ed . T h e p e titio n e r c o m p la in e d of in fr in g e m e n t of h er fu n d a m e n ta l rig h ts
g u a r a n te e d by A rticles 11 a n d 13 (1) of th e C on stitu tion.
It is clear from the petitioner’s version that she was raped by one or more persons near the check point while they were on duty at the check point, and that she was subjected to an unlawful restraint
on liberty. The State is therefore responsible for the infringement of her fundamental rights. We hold that the petitioner’s fundamental right under Articles 11 and 13 (1) have been infringed by executive 30
action.
