'Most Heinous' : Karnataka Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Police Sub-Inspector Who Allegedly Forced Dalit Man To Drink Urine

Observing that "the alleged nature of the incident is most heinous in nature. Not only the victim has been urinated upon, but he has been made to lick the urine from the floor. Such an act of atrocity destroys the personal dignity of any person," a special Judge at Chikkamagaluru on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail application filed by police sub-inspector Arjun Gowda. The police officer had filed anticipatory bail in a cases registered against him on may 22, with the Gonibeedu police for the offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 504, 506, 330, 348 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015. It was alleged that on May 10, the complainant K.L.Puneeth was in his house situated at Kirugunda Village. At that time one K.E.Ramesha, K.B.Paramesh and their group came near his house and asked him to come along with them to talk about the phone call made by him to one Anuya. But as there was a huge mob, the complainant did not go with them and telephoned 112 and sought help. Police rushed to the spot, but the said mob did not agree and hence they called the accused, who is the P.S.I., of Gonibeedu police station. The accused came there and without enquiring the complainant asked him to board the jeep. When the complainant questioned the act of the accused, he was allegedly abused in filthy language and assaulted him. Later he was taken to the police station where allegedly removed his clothes, tied his hands and legs to a pole and put the iron road across his thigh and hanged him. Later the accused assaulted him at his whims and fancy and asked him with regard to the relationship with him and Anuya. It is further alleged that "Due to the ill-treatment given by the accused, the complainant agreed for the say of the accused and in spite of that the accused assaulted him and abused him by taking the name of his caste. As he was thirsty, the complainant asked the accused to provide water and at that time the accused called another accused by name Chethan and as per the direction of the accused said Chethan passed urine to the mouth of the complainant. Thereafter the accused made the victim lick the urine from the ground. The accused in his application stated that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed the offences alleged against him. Further, he is a respectable police officer and he hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society. He has got his family members to look after. Since the investigation has already been closed and he is not required for further investigation, he should be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand the prosecution opposed the application by stating that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. That there is a clear bar to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 18(2) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. That the petitioner is the P.S.I., and if he is released on bail, he may use his influence and there are possibilities of the petitioner tampering the case of the prosecution. The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature. Looking to the grievousness of the offence, the matter is referred to C.I.D. Court Findings: Special Judge K L Ashok, first noted that since the accused is a police sub-inspector, it is necessary to consider whether he can avail the protection accorded under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It said "Admittedly illegal detention and custodial torture are not part and parcel of the duty of the police officers. Therefore the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., does not come into picture and no prior sanction would be required to proceed against such police officers." It also referred to an order passed by the Karnataka High Court decided on 24.05.2021 in Criminal Petition No.996/2021 the case of S.Shiva Kumar and others Vs. State of Karnataka by Chikkaballapura Rural police and another has held that in cases of illegal detention and custodial torture, no prior sanction is necessary. The court then took up the contention raised by the accused of delay in lodging the complaint. It was argued that the case itself is doubtful and the delay itself establishes that there is no prima facie case. The alleged incident had taken place on 10.05.2021 but a police complaint was lodged only on 22.05.2021 after a lapse of 12 days. The court observed "In this case, it is pertinent to note that the alleged offence has been committed by a police officer. This victim is a layman, who has no influence. When he has been bundled and taken to the police station and was tortured in custody, the victim just would not know what he should do next. He totally would be drawing a blank regarding his future action. He cannot straight away walk into...

'Most Heinous' : Karnataka Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Police Sub-Inspector Who Allegedly Forced Dalit Man To Drink Urine

Mustafa Plumber

Tags