1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
W.P.H.C. NO.30/2020
BETWEEN:
J.B.MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
GANDARAGULIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION
NELAMANGALA BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENALURU-569 991
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.HEGDE, SPP-II)
2
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226(1) OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TRACE
THE SON OF THE PETITIONER JAYARAMAKRISHNA @
JAYANTH FORTHWITH AND PRODUCE HIM BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY.
THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of habeas corpus by directing respondent to trace Jayaram Krishna @ Jayanth son of petitioner and to produce him before this court. On notice being issued, status reports have been filed from time-to-time. In fact, by order dated 04.06.2020 the Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice had observed as under:
"4. There is one more shocking circumstance revealed that the statement of the petitioner, who is the father of the child, was recorded as recently as on 18th May 2020 and the said statement, according to the learned State Public Prosecutor, was recorded by the officer of the Nelamangala Circle Police Station. However, the documents produced by him along with memo show that as on 18th May 2020, it was CEN Police Station, which was seized of the investigation and not Nelamangala Circle Police Station. By a memo dated 21st May 2020, the Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District, transferred back the 3 investigation to Nelamangala Circle Police Station, Nelamangala. Apart from the fact that for one and half years, the statement of the petitioner was not recorded, we wonder how the statement is recorded on 18th May 2020 by an Officer of a Police Station, who was not investigating the case.
5. Considering the manner in which the entire investigation has been carried out and considering the approach adopted by the Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District, we direct the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru, to appoint a Senior IPS Officer to look into the manner in which the investigation has been carried out by two Police Stations. The officer so appointed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police will immediately submit a report on the basis of which the investigation shall be entrusted to appropriate higher officer/appropriate agency. Needless to add that if the Senior Officer appointed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police finds that any default has been committed by any Police Officer, appropriate action shall be initiated against the erring Police Officer in accordance with law."
2. In compliance of aforesaid direction, a memo came to be filed by learned SPP-II on 12.06.2020 enclosing report of Sri.K.V.Sharath Chandra, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Bengaluru, dated 11.06.2020 whereunder it was stated that action has been initiated against four (4) erring officials under 4 Rule 7 of Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965/89. By said order, the Inspector General of Police had appointed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District, to take over further investigation and said authority was directed to file a detailed report. Report submitted by Sri.V.J.Sajeeth, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District was perused and by order dated 25.06.2020 said report was ordered to be kept on record by re-sealing it. For filing of further report by Investigating Officer matter came to be adjourned to 27.07.2020.
3. On account of officer having undergone Covid-19 test, he had remained in quarantine and report was not signed by him and as such further time was granted on 27.07.2020 upto 12.08.2020 to file further report. It was also directed by said order dated 27.07.2020 that concerned officer while submitting further report should state the procedure laid down by Rule 92 and in particular, sub-rule (4) onwards of 5 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 has been followed or not. Further, report submitted was perused by this court and to ascertain the correctness of the same, documents referred to therein was ordered to be placed on record. On such records/statements being placed, this court after noticing the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLAN vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS [decided on 13/01/2015] (Bachpan Bachao Andolan) and earlier case in SAMPURNA BEHURA vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [decided on 12/10/2011] whereunder specific directions to the concerned authorities under the Act specially for the purpose of tracing missing children had been issued and had directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Department of Women and Child Development to file their affidavits as to the manner in which investigation is conducted in the cases of missing children and generally as to what steps are being taken and the manner of coordination between various authorities constituted under the Act for the purposes of 6 tracing the missing children. Pursuant to said directions affidavits of Additional Chief Secretary and in-charge Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development and Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, Karnataka State, as well as affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary came to be filed on 30.09.2020 and 08.10.2020. Same was taken note of. A perusal of said affidavits would disclose the manner in which efforts would be made to trace the missing children and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) developed by Ministry of Women and Child (Annexure- R-1) is said to have been circulated to all the stakeholders for being followed and it is also stated that data relating to missing child is also uploaded in the National Tracking System for Missing and Vulnerable Children, for the period 01.01.2012 to 23.09.2020 and same would disclose that data relating to 26,914 children had been entered in the portal. Other details with regard to manner in which Standard Operating Procedure is being operated has also been explained in the affidavit filed. This has been reiterated in the 7 affidavit dated 07.10.2020 filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home.
4. In order to ascertain that investigation is being proceeded in the manner as explained in the affidavits filed by authorities referred to herein supra, we had directed Sri.V.J.Sajeeth, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, to appear in person and accordingly he has appeared and has reiterated the contents of reports filed by him on more than one (1) occasion. A perusal of same would indicate that though there has been certain lapses in the manner investigation has been conducted, remedial steps have been taken by not only initiating disciplinary action against concerned erring officials but the present case of missing child of the petitioner is also being investigated as per the extant SOP.
5. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 92 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 the case is required to be transferred to Anti- Human Trafficking, where the child is not traced within 8 a period of four (4) months and investigation has to be carried out by the said unit and they are required to submit reports every three (3) months to the District Legal Service Authority regarding progress made in the investigation. Present Investigating Officer who has been appointed being the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is said to be investigating the matter. On account of case on hand having been transferred to the said unit and investigation having proceeded in tardy manner and several lapses having occurred, this court had directed the investigation to be conducted by a Senior IPS officer and accordingly, investigation has been retransferred to the Nelamangala Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is directed to monitor the said investigation and submit report to the District Legal Services Authorities, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, every quarterly i.e., once in three (3) months regarding progress made in the investigation and in the event of Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority finds there being any lapse, delay, negligence 9 or investigation not being proceeded in the manner in which it ought to have proceeded, he would be at liberty to file a report to this court pointing out lapses, if any. As such we are of the considered view that with aforesaid direction this petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application, if need arises. It is also needless to state that Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore, would also be at liberty to seek for any direction before this court in the event of investigation not proceeding as expected of in the normal course. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE DR