® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2972 OF2020C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2845 OF2020 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2858 OF2020AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.3180 OF2020IN CRL.P.No.2972/2020 BETWEEN: Rakesh, S/o Chandrasekharappa, Aged about 48 years, Ittegehalli, Ayanur post, Shimoga Taluk, Shimoga District – 577 211. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Arnav A. Bagalwadi, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Thirumalashethalli Police Station, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru – 560 067. By State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore – 01.
2. The State of Karnataka, By the Criminal Investigation Department, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.-. 2 - 3. Smt.Dhanalakshmi, W/o late Munikullappa, Aged about 44 years, Nadavatti Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru District – 562 114. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vinayak V.S., HCGP for R1 and R2) IN CRL.P.No.2845/2020 BETWEEN: Shri.Muniveerappa M., Aged 36 years, Son of Shri.Munisiddappa, Residing at No.67, 4th Cross, 2nd Main, Siddapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk – 560 037. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Pallava R, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Thirumalashethalli Police Station, Thirumalashettihalli, Hoskote – 562 114. Represented by the Learned SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka, By Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.-. 3 - Represented by the Learned SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Smt.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Munikullappa, Aged 44 years, Resident of Naduvatti Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vinayak V.S., HCGP for R1 and R2; R3 served, unrepresented) IN CRL.P.No.2858/2020 BETWEEN: Shri.Srinivasa M., Aged 40 years, Son of Shri.Munivenkatappa, Residing at No.8/8, Near Forest Office Road, 1st Main, 1st Cross, M.V.Extensin, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Pallava R, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Thirumalashethalli Police Station, Thirumalashettihalli, Hoskote – 562 114. Represented by the Learned SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka, By Criminal Investigation - 4 - Department (CID), Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by the Learned SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Smt.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Munikullappa, Aged 44 years, Resident of Naduvatti Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vinayak V.S., HCGP for R1 and R2; R3 served, unrepresented) IN CRL.P.No.3180/2020 BETWEEN: Mahadev Reddy, S/o late Subba Reddy, Aged about 56 years, R/at Bhavya Nilaya, 9th Cross, 2nd Main, 4th Ward, Vivekananda Nagar, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Venkata Reddy S.K., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Thirumalashethalli Police, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District. [Now COD, Bengaluru]., Represented by S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.-. 5 - 2. Dhanalakshmi, W/o late Munikullappa, Aged about 44 years, Resident of Naduvatti Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 560 007. ... Respondents (By Sri.Vinayak V.S., HCGP for R1; R2 served, unrepresented) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.42/2020 of Thirumalashettahalli P.S., Bengaluru For the offences P/U/S342 384, 302, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders through video conference this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Crl.P.Nos.2972/2020, 2845/2020, 2858/2020 and 3180/2020 have been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6, respectively under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.42/2020 of Thirumalashettahalli Police Station (pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, - 6 - Bengaluru) for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015.
2. I have heard Sri.Arun A. Bagalwadi, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2, Sri. Pallava R., learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and Sri. Venkata Reddy S.K., learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.04.2020, accused No.2-Rakesh and accused No.3-Santhosh came to the house of the complainant and took her husband-deceased Munikullappa. When the complainant questioned, she was told that after enquiry within few minutes he will be sent back. On the next day i.e., on 09.04.2020, her husband did not return and the complainant went in - 7 - search of her husband to the police station and she found her husband was in the cell and he was being assaulted indiscriminately on his chest, waist and other parts of his body. When the complainant questioned accused No.2-Rakesh, he abused the complainant in filthy language and also by taking the name of her caste and told her that they will conduct encounter on her husband in the police station and further, abused her husband in her presence. Accused Nos.2-Rakesh, 3- Santhosh, 4-Muniveerapa, 5-Srinivas M. and 6-Mahadev Reddy have assaulted and tortured the deceased. When the complainant screamed and requested to spare her husband for which, accused No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as bribe otherwise, her husband wouldn’t return. When the complainant and her son told that they do not have any such amount, accused No.2 asked her son to pledge her mother and get the money and pushed them out.-. 8 - 4. On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., accused Nos.1-Raghu, 2-Rakesh, 3-Santhosh, 6- Mahadev Reddy, 4-Muniveerappa and 5-Srinivas M. asked her husband to take out something from the well and when her husband told them that he does not know, they abused him by taking the name of caste and kicked him, as a result of the same, he fell into well. The complainant screamed that the police have killed her husband, she and her son in the presence of villagers lifted her husband and went to Srinivasa Nurshing Home, Hoskote and the hospital authorities informed that the situation has gone beyond the control and they cannot help. Later, the complainant took her husband to the Government Hospital, Hoskote, he could not recover and died. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that the - 9 - petitioner/accused No.2 was on COVID duty and he was not present at the time of the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is his further submission that the petitioner was informed that wife of the deceased had filed a complaint against him and other police officials. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused No.2 was on duty and he has produced the case diaries pertaining to the said period. He is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 that there are no serious overt acts alleged as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and death of the deceased is not attributable to the petitioner/accused Nos.4 and 5. It is his further submission that the cause - 10 - of death is due to drowning and only derogative statements have been made as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5. It is his further submission that in pursuance of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., neither they were incharge of police station nor they were the Station House Officers at that time when the alleged incident has taken place. It is his further submission that overt acts which have been alleged, if they are taken into consideration they are very minor injuries and even omnibus allegations have been made insofar as abusing by taking the name of the caste. They are ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.6 that he was present in the police station and at about - 11 - 9.30 p.m., he has registered a case and he was the only person in the police station and he has nothing to do with the overt acts alleged and even he has also not gone to the place where the death has taken place. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 came near the house of the complainant and took the deceased to the Police Station by telling that they will make an enquiry with him and immediately, within a few minutes, he will be sent back. Subsequently, they manhandled the deceased by brutally assaulting him and caused as many as 16 injuries all over his body. It is his further submission that taking into consideration the spot mahazar as regards the specification of the well, then under such - 12 - circumstances, the well was covered with bush and even some waste materials were also lying in the said well. If the deceased had run and jumped into the well, then such injuries are not possible to happen over the body of the deceased. It is his further submission that on 08.04.2020, he was taken and assaulted and subsequently, even on 09.04.2020 he was assaulted. Subsequently, after the incident has taken place, a case has been registered against the deceased for having involved in an offence. If really, at about 9.30 p.m., a case has been registered, the case diary ought to have disclosed that at what time the said intimation has been sent to the Jurisdictional Court and even the movement of officials could have been recorded. No such material has been placed on record. It is his further submission that if accused No.2 was on COVID-19 duty and he was on rounds, it is nothing but a plea of alibi that has to be gone into only during the course of trial, not at this premature stage. Still, investigation is going on, at this - 13 - premature stage, if they are released on bail, they are likely to influence the investigation and they may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsels for the appearing for the parties and perused the records.
10. On close reading of the Post Mortem Report, it indicates that the deceased has suffered with 16 serious injuries inflicted on his body and contents of the complaint clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.2 and other police officials went to the house of the complainant and brought him along with them and intimated the complainant that after an enquiry within few minutes, they will send back the deceased to her house. Even on the next day, the deceased was not sent back and when the complainant went to the police station, the deceased was being - 14 - assaulted and the complainant was also abused by taking the name of her caste. The police officials went and took the deceased to their custody and the deceased has suffered with so many injuries. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the deceased was in police custody, at that time, he was inhumanly assaulted and was caused with multiple injuries. Though, it is contended during the course of the argument that the deceased himself tried to run away and fell into the well. As rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader that specification of the well where the deceased is said to have jumped, is not a usual well and it is covered with bush. Under such circumstances, it cannot be even unimagined held that it is an accidental fall, when he was running from the custody of the police station. If really, the deceased was trying to run away from the Police Station, there are so many other alternatives available for the police to prevent him from running - 15 - away. Without using such methods, they have taken a defence of he jumping into the well. Be that as it may. The police officials have not made any efforts to prevent him from jumping into the well. Even there is no explanation abut 16 injuries found over the body of the deceased that too when he was in Police custody. Under such circumstances, it creates doubt on the submission made by the learned counsel that he tried to run away from Police Station and in that light, he fell into the well. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 6 that no serious overt acts have been alleged against them and they were not SHO or Station in-charge as per Section 167 of Cr.P.C but the deceased was in the police custody and specific allegations have been made as against each of the accused persons for having assaulted the deceased. I have also perused statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which has been made available by the Investigating Officer and there also it is - 16 - found that some overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6. Under such circumstances, it is considered to be a serious act. Being the police officials they cannot take law into their own hand and assault a person who is taken to the police custody. If the persons who are there to protect the rights and interest of general public and if they do such activities, ultimately it has resulted into death of an innocent person. The act of the Police Officials is like “fence itself eating the crop”, then under such circumstances, it cannot be taken lightly and it cannot be held that the petitioners/accused are not involved in the alleged offence that too they have come up before this Court under the pretext of seeking anticipatory bail.
11. Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case on hand, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 have not made out any good grounds to release them on - 17 - anticipatory bail. The petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 to move for regular bail, if they surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the Court below. Sd/- JUDGE NR/-