Khaleel Ahmed H M vs The Commissioner Of Police on 26 August, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Khaleel Ahmed H M vs The Commissioner Of Police on 26 August, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1752

Bench: Abhay S. Oka

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

 WRIT PETITION NO. 9357 OF 2020 (GM-POLICE-PIL)

BETWEEN:
KHALEEL AHMED H.M.
S/O H.M.MOINUDDIN SHARIFF
AGED 51 YEARS
R/AT B-305, BRIGADE CALADIUM
HEBBAL KEMPAPURA
BANGALORE-560 024.
                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SYED AHMED, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA.

2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIME)
BENGALURU CITY POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA.

3. INVESTIGATION OFFICER
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
COTTONPET MAIN ROAD
                             2


SULTANPET, BAKSHI GARDENS
CHICKPET
BENGALURU-560 001.

4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
DJ HALLI POLICE.

5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KG HALLI POLICE.

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5
ARE REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.M.POONACHA, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
                        ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS

HON'BLE      COURT    TO   ISSUE   DIRECTION   TO     THE

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO PUBLISH NAMES OF ALL

ARRESTED PERSONS IN THIS CONNECTION DJ HALLI AND

KG   HALLI    RIOTS   IN   THE   OFFICIAL   WEBSITE   OF

BANGALORE CITY POLICE TILL THE COMPLETION OF

INVESTIGATION, AND ETC.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY , CHIEF JUSTICE MADE

THE FOLLOWING:
                               3


                           ORDER

The first prayer made in this petition reads thus:

"1. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 to publish names of all arrested persons in this connection DJ Halli And KG Halli riots in the official website of Bangalore City Police till the completion of investigation."

2. The petitioner claims to be a pro bono litigant who has purported to take up the cause of the persons who are allegedly the accused in the incident of riots on 11th August, 2020. Prayer clause (i) suggests that the petitioner wants to ensure that wide publicity is given to the names of the accused alleged to be connected with the offences relating to the riots on 11th August, 2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 41C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the said Code of 1973"). Section 41C operates in a totally different area. It provides that the State Government shall cause to be displayed on the notice board kept outside the police control rooms of every district the names and addresses of the persons arrested and the name and designation of the police officer who made the arrests. 4

4. If we grant the prayer clause (i), it will amount to giving wide publicity to the names of the persons who are shown as accused or who have been arrested in connection with the offences. Once the names are published on the official website of the city police, the names will go viral which may offend the right of the privacy of the accused.

5. A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner claims that he is working for the deprived sections of the society and he wants to take up the cause of the accused who, according to him, are helpless as the police are not following the law laid down by the Apex Court in a well known decision in the case of D.K.BASU, ASHOK K.JOHRI .v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF U.P.1. as well as the provisions of Section 41B onwards of the said Code of 1973.

6. The first prayer shows that the petitioner is not acting for the benefit of the accused persons. If the said prayer is granted, it will cause prejudice to the accused and their 1 1997) 1 SCC 416 5 families. Therefore, this is not a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of filing a public interest litigation. Though we are not entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, we make it clear that the issues raised in this petition regarding the violations committed by the police of the rights of the accused are kept open which can be always agitated in appropriate proceedings.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE vgh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court