J B Manjunath vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 127 Kant

                              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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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