SHANTHAMMA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is to be an eye opener to the Police Department in the matter of conducting proceedings in the highest Court of the State. One Smt. Shanthamma moved this Court by way of a Habeas corpus petition on 28. 6. 2006 in W. P. No. 62/2006 (HC ). According to her, the Sub Inspector of Police, Indira Nagar arrested the petitioners son on 23. 6. 2006 at around 12. 45 in the mid-night, while he was sleeping in the petitioners house. On 24. 6. 2006, she went to Malur Police Station and made enquiries with regard to the whereabouts of her son. She was told that her son was not arrested. Thereafter, after search and enquiry, she came to know that her son is in the custody of Indira Nagar Police Station on 28. 6. 2006. Immediately, she moved this Habeas Corpus petition in this Court. This Court noticed the submission of Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel that the detenu is in Indira Nagar Police Station, according to his instructions and that the Police are not relieving the detenu on the ground that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is to be made over to the Police. After noticing the seriousness of payment to the Police for release of the detenue, we thought it fit to issue notice and get affidavits in the light of the submission made by Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) MATTER was listed on 29. 6. 2006. On the said day, Sri. Murugesh Babu was produced before us by the Inspector of Police by name Sri. V. P. M. Swamy and Sub Inspector of Police for Crime Sri. Baig of Indira Nagar Police Station. We made enquiries with Sri. Murugesh Babu with regard to the statement made in Court on 28. 6. 2006. He categorically stated reluctantly in the beginning that he was taken into custody on the mid-night of 23. 6. 2006 by six police officials of Indira Nagar Police Station. According to the submissions, he seems to be involved in a theft case. Thereafter, we notice that he was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours in terms of the law governing such detention. No explanation was forthcoming by the police in this regard. In these circumstances, we though it fit to get the affidavits from the police officers and hence, the matter was adjourned to 4. 7. 2006 in terms of the order passed on 29. 6. 2006. Matter was adjourned.

(3.) ON 4. 7. 2006, affidavits were filed and documents were produced. After noticing the discrepancies in the Station House Diary and other documents with regard to detention in terms of the affidavit, we thought it fit to direct these materials to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar Vigilance. Matter was again listed on 10. 7. 2006, in the matter of further hearing in the light of the affidavits filed before us. After noticing the discrepancies and after noticing the affidavits filed by the police officials, we thought that the matter requires a further investigation to find out the truth in the matter. In these circumstances, we thought it fit to direct the Registrar Vigilance of this Court to submit a report, after hearing the concerned police officials with regard to the affidavits filed in this Court and with regard to the Station House Diary and Case Diary in terms of the order dated 10. 7. 2006. We directed the Registrar Vigilance to submit a report in this regard. Thereafter, the matter was clarified with regard to further materials in terms of an order dated 19. 7. 2006.