Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict In Plea For CBI Probe Into Lawyer's Suicide After Alleged Torture By Police Officer

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on an application filed by Advocates Association of Bengaluru, seeking a direction to transfer to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), an abetment to suicide case–concerning the death of an advocate–registered against a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

While reserving its verdict, the orally questioned the police authorities if it had conducted any investigation against the concerned police officer who is accused of torturing the deceased to death, adding that "arms of law will not reach the police" which is why the officer had not sought for anticipatory bail. The case was registered after an advocate Kumari Jeeva Subbarayan is stated to have committed suicide alleging torture at the hands of the concerned police officer.

During the hearing today, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the order would be pronounced on Friday. The high court said, “The judgement is reserved on the plea of the Association to refer the crime no 338 of 2024 to an independent investigating agency including the CBI”.

Earlier Jeeva Subbarayan, had approached the court alleging torture being meted on her by the DySP Kanaka Lakshmi B M and vide order of November 13, probe was directed to be video graphed.

However, on November 22, alleging that the investigating officer has meted out such torture upon her she, after penning down a death note running into 13 pages, had committed suicide.

Following which the police registered a case against the police officer under section 108 (abetment to suicide) of the BNS. After her death the Association had preferred an application seeking transfer of the investigation in the case insofar as it concerns the offence of abetment to suicide to the hands of an independent agency.

Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy and President of the Association argued that investigation, if it has to be fair and generate public confidence, should be handed over to the CBI, as one officer will always protect the other in the police force.

Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar for the association said “Not only the bench, but the bar has got a greater responsibility to discharge the obligations enshrined in the Constitution”.

Meanwhile Additional SPP B N Jagadeesha appearing for the State opposed the application filed by the Association. The SPP said, “We want to investigate the matter because the main accused were found at the body along with others. Various uncomfortable questions were asked to the accused because of the materials we have”.

To which the bench orally said, “What investigation have you done against a police officer who is alleged of torturing someone to death. Has she (Officer) taken anticipatory bail, she will not take it because she is a DySP. Because the arms of law will not reach the police. That's why she has not taken anticipatory bail. Then why have you not arrested her? Why have you not treated this police officer as a common alleged accused in any other crime? For a crime which is 306 IPC just because she is a police officer she is away from the arms of law”.

It added, “In a case of a 13-page death note in the case of a common man would you not have arrested immediately. Or somebody would have not taken anticipatory bail. Just because it is a police officer all hands stalled otherwise all guns blazing”.

Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai for the police officer said, “What falls from the court acts as a catalyst and law should not be given a go by for me.” The bench replied “If it would have been a common man what action the police would have taken”.

Following which the bench reserved its order.

Case Title: JEEVA S AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 8640/2023 c/w CRL.P 12695/2024