Karnataka High Court
Raghu K K vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2865/2020
BETWEEN:
RAGHU K.K.
S/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
BEERESHWARA NISAYA,
KADAYANNA KOPPALU
HULLIKERE POST,
ARSIKERE
HASSAN DISTRICT-571405. ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KAMATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THIRUMALASHETHALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 001
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. SMT.DHANALAKSHMI
W/O LATE MUNIKULLAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NADAVATTI VILLAGE
HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.42/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 342, 384, 302,
504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(2)(V)(a) OF SC and ST (POA).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT
BENGALURU MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri.Praveen Kamath for
petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondents 1 and 2 are present.
3. Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Notice to complainant is not yet served. In the 3 circumstances of the case the matter is taken up for disposal.
4. The petitioner Raghu K.K., aged 37 years, S/o Kalegowda has sought for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for his release in the event of arrest in Crime No.42/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC and ST (POA) Act.
5. The substance of the complaint as could be read from the report dated 10.04.2020 lodged by Dhanalakshmi, W/o Munikullappa, Naduvatti Village, Kasaba Hobali, Hosakote, Bengaluru, registered in Crime No.42/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC and ST (POA) Act.
4
6. It is stated that on Wednesday- 08.04.2020 circle inspector Raghu, Sub inspector Rakesh and Santhosh came to the house of the complainant and they took her husband (Munikullappa) and when the complainant questioned she was told that after enquiry in five minutes he will be sent back and next day it was Thursday but her husband did not return and complainant went in search of her husband to police station and saw that her husband was in the cell and was being hit and attacked indiscriminately on chest and waist, centre. The complainant asked the police Sub-inspector -Rakesh why her husband was beaten indiscriminately and he responded to the complainant as prostitute widow, Hole (caste) widow and also abused in the name of mother of the complainant linking to sex and threatened that they are going to conduct encounter of complainant's husband in the police station and further used below 5 the belt bad language and in her presence he went into the cell and her husband was beaten indiscriminately by sub-inspector Rakesh, Santhosh, Reddy, Srinivas and Munirappa and was tortured.
7. When the complainant screamed and requested to spare her husband for which Sub-inspector-Rakesh demanded Rs.2,50,000/- as bribe otherwise her husband would not return and when she and her son told that they do not have that much amount. The sub-inspector asked her son to pledge her mother and get money and pushed them out and they came back home weeping. On the date of complaint in the afternoon at about 2.30 P.M. police officers namely Raghu-petitioner, Rakesh, Santhosh, Reddy, Munirappa, Srinivas asked her husband to take out some thing from the well and her husband told he does not know.
6
8. The police officials Santhosh and Raghu abused her husband in the name of Caste (Holeya) abused in a bad language with reference to sex of his mother and kicked her husband and her husband fell into the well. She screamed that police killed her husband. Then the complainant and her son with the help of villagers lifted her husband and went to Srinivasa Nursing Home, Hosakote and hospital authorities told that the situation has gone beyond control. Later they went to Government Hospital, Hosakote finally he was taken to MVJ Hospital as her husband could not recover and died. The FIR is registered against those persons among them the petitioner is accused No.1.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Praveen Kamath submits that a false complaint was filed against the accused-officers including the petitioner who is innocent of the offence alleged against him. It 7 is also the version of the petitioner that he is the circle inspector of police and his name has been implicated for wrong reasons. Learned counsel would further submit that call list and diary extract would establish that the petitioner was never in the village of Naduvatti. It is the place of complainant and her husband -Munikullappa.
10. It was also submitted the petitioner was on patrolling duty in his official car which could be read out through independent source of call list. The allegation of the complainant in this connection is not only false but also made with a view to blackmail the petitioner.
11. Learned HCGP Sri K.Nageshwarappa would submit that the petitioner who claims to be responsible police official has committed heinous offence and allowed his sub-ordinates to inflict life 8 endangering blows and had caused hurt of this nature which were bound to cause the death of husband of complainant. He would further submit that the matter is under investigation and the petitioner is an influential official and if he is released on bail there is every possibility of he manipulating the documents and destroying the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary.
12. In the circumstances it is to be seen that the petitioner is stated to be a circle inspector of police for Thirumalashettahalli Circle covering certain police station. The allegation made against him by the complainant is that her husband was beaten at police station which is under the control of the petitioner. Further according to complainant, petitioner went to the place of complainant along with other officers and in the course of physical torture her husband was asked to get into well and bring some thing, for which 9 her husband pleaded that he does not know and thereafter he was pressurized, beaten by police officials including petitioner who kicked her husband and her husband fell into the well. When the complainant screamed they had fled the scene. The injured husband was lifted by the complainant and her son along with the help of villagers. He was taken to several hospitals at Hosakote namely Srinivas Nursing Home, Government hospital and MVJ hospital. Finally he died at MVJ hospital. The investigation of the case is stated to be pending. It is strong version of the prosecution that if petitioner is let on bail he is going to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and would cause threat to the prosecution witnesses. Out of six accused persons the petitioner is accused No.1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits he has no idea about other accused persons.
10
13. Learned HCGP submits that other accused persons are still at large not available for the investigation.
14. The complainant claims that her husband died because of physical torture inflicted on him while he was in police custody and she also claims that even in her presence serious injuries were inflicted on her husband by the police including the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was not present when the complainant's husband received injuries more over he had not gone to Naduvatti village as he was patrolling in different places and there was no occasion at that particular movement he was at Naduvatti.
15. The FIR is registered at Thirumalashettahalli Police Station. Insofar as official status of the petitioner is that he is circle inspector. The apprehension of the prosecution is he is likely to 11 subvert the investigation if he is enlarged on bail. The post mortem report is not before the court. At this stage it appears to be homicide with serious injuries. The important aspect of investigation is yet to be conducted obviously by keeping the petitioner and other accused persons at a distance.
16. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in C.Crl.Misc.No. 29/2020 has rejected the application for anticipatory bail on 05.06.2020. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner is at large from the date of offence.
17. The main allegation is committing murder of a person who was in the custody of police including the petitioner and abusing the complainant and her husband in the name of caste and also using abusive language with attribution of sexual act and bringing out the name of the mother.
12
18. The allegation of homicide amounting to murder as per Section 300 of IPC due to property dispute, private dispute and related cannot be equated to allegation of lock up death. The decision to grant relief under Section 438 for the offence of `lockup' or custodial death has to be made after a serious and careful examination in the cases similar to the present one. Natural rule is that acts of a police personnel stand at a higher footing. Further on facts the petitioner has not made out grounds for granting the relief.
19. Considering the conduct of the petitioner at the relevant time of incident, allegations made against him and the accused persons being police officials I find there is strong case of interference to the investigation and threat to investigation in case the 13 relief of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is granted to the petitioner.
20. Notice to the complainant or the presence is not considered, as the petition is devoid of merits.
Petition is dismissed.
At this stage learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Praveen Kumar submits one more opportunity is required and that his senior would come and address to convince the court on the point of law.
I find this is not a proper way of submission nor disciplined submission and it is not proper on the court to consider the same. Submission is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN