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

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 the police station and lodge a complaint against the officer in-charge. That is totally unthinkable. He also can not approach the higher officials. The victim being a rustic villager that too belonging to a weaker community, cannot be expected to walk freely into the office of higher officials and lodged a police complaint against their own subordinate. Such being the case, it does take some time for the victim to assess his situation and thereupon he can take any possible action."

The court also opined 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. Personal dignity is one's inner feelings and attitudes of self-love, self-care, self-esteem, and self-appreciation. It's the way one thinks and feels about himself. A person, who has suffered this kind of alleged atrocity would be in utter shock and definitely would not normally be in a position to disclose the incident to any one or seek redressal of the same. He takes time to process things. He has to muster the courage to disclose the incident to his near and dear ones. This would not be easy and would take some time. Hence the complainant is not expected to lodge the police complaint at the earliest. Therefore at this stage it cannot be held that the delay in lodging the police complaint helps the accused in any manner."

Discussion with community members renders complaint fabricated.

The next contention raised by the accused was that the complaint was fabricated as the complainant discussed it with community members. To which the court said "This victim having suffered such a shock would not be able to keep the same suppressed and it is only natural that he has discussed it with his community leaders. Mere Crl.Mis.346 of 2021 15 discussion with community leaders regarding the next course of action does not mean that the complaint is fabricated. This is only the normal conduct of a person, who has suffered an atrocity. Therefore this argument does not hold good."

Prima Facie Case against the accused.

The court noted "When this victim was taken to the police station, no crime was registered against him, nor was he a suspect. Without there being anything, the accused has dragged the victim to police station where this victim was kept in illegal detention and suffered custodial torture. It is relevant to note that the accused had no business to drag the victim to the police station. The victim was not provided with any kind of legal aid. He was not arrested let alone a case being registered against him at that time. As discussed earlier, the incident is most heinous in nature. It shatters the dignity of a person and he would not know what is to be done."

It added "Any person, who has suffered this kind of atrocity would not go around canvassing the same. It would be too humiliating for him even to discuss the matter with his friends and relatives. Therefore it is just not possible to believe that this victim would fabricate such an incident that he was urinated on and he had licked the urine of any other person. Further, the delay in lodging the complaint itself reflects the dilemma suffered by the victim. Such being the case, it is to be held that there is a clear prima facie case against the accused."

Custodial Torture

The court on going through the medical records and photographs of injuries meted on the complaint, produced by the prosecution said "These photographs reflect that the victim has suffered injuries on his hands and legs, which are supported by a medical certificate. This corroborates the case of illegal detention and custodial torture. This is not the way a police officer is expected to act. A police officer is the custodian of the public trust and faith. He is expected to protect the innocent."

Moreover, the court said "When the alleged incident is so heinous and shocking in nature, extending the benefit of anticipatory bail would have a serious adverse impact on the society. It would send a wrong message that the protective machinery of the State can do no wrong and the people have no protection. This is also one of the reasons for not extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused."

It rejected the application by saying "It is also necessary to consider the status of the accused. The accused is a powerful police officer who has allegedly shown that he can take the law into his own hands and go to any extent. If he is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, certainly the victim would not be safe. The life and liberty of the victim would be at constant threat. At the same time the investigation is still in its infancy and for an unbiased investigation it would be just and necessary that the accused should not be in a position to exercise his power and influence the investigation. As discussed earlier, when there is a clear prima facie case against the accused, the provisions of Section 18A of SC & ST Crl.Mis.346 of 2021 20 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act comes into picture and it prohibits granting of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused."