"Most heinous act:" Karnataka Court denies anticipatory bail to Police Sub-Inspector who allegedly forced Dalit man in custody to drink urine

A Karnataka Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to a suspended Police Sub-Inspector who allegedly forced a 22-year-old belonging to a scheduled caste community to drink urine while in police custody..While denying anticipatory bail to K Arjun Horakeri of the Gonibeedu police station, Chikmagalur's first Additional District Court observed that the incident was "most heinous" and such an atrocious act destroys and affects the dignity of a person. ."The alleged nature of 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," the order stated..The Court also rejected the submissions made by Arjun Horakeri concerning the delay in filing the complaint."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," it observed. .Barely concealing its shock over the alleged trail of events, Judge KL Ashok further remarked, "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.".KL Punith, the victim in this case, had lodged a complaint against Horakeri, as the latter had forced him to drink urine in police custody when he had asked for water. It was further alleged that the victim was humiliated and ill treated in police custody. .This prompted the 22-year-old to write to the officials, demanding action against the sub-inspector. Subsequently, a first information report (FIR) was registered against Arjun Horakeri in Gonibeedu Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. Following the case, Horakeri was also placed under suspension..Fearing arrest, the sub-inspector filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in the matter before Chikmagalur's first Additional District Court. .The counsel for the sub-inspector argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Thus, according to him, the case itself is doubtful and the delay itself establishes that there is no prima facie case..When the matter came up before the Court on Friday, the State government opposed Horakeri's plea for anticipatory bail, contending that the sub-inspector is in a position to influence the police department if the protection sought for is granted. .“He is politically and economically powerful and may abuse the prospect of bail and destroy the prosecution's evidence. Again, there is a possibility of serious act against the plaintiff (KL Punith of Kirigunda village) and his family. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail for any reason," the Court recorded the State as having submitted. .It was further argued that the suspended police officer's anticipatory bail application must be dismissed because of the social implications of the case, given that the Horakeri has been accused of unfair and inhumane treatment against the victim. .Further, referring to various judgments passed by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as based on the Section 18 (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the Public prosecutor urged the Court to dismiss the anticipatory bail application. .Concerns such as the likelihood of the offense being repeated by the accused as well as witnesses being influenced, if the accused is granted anticpatory bail, were also raised by the State government..Illegal detention and custodial torture are not part and parcel of the duty of the police officers.Karnataka Court.After going through the rival submissions, the Court assessed the the reasons as to why there was a delay in lodging the complaint. .The Court was of the opinion that the victim, being a layman and the offender being a police officer, it would be "unthinkable" for the former to barge into a police station and register a complaint against the police officer itself. ."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 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 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 weaker community, cannot be expected to walk freely in to 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. Therefore this would result in delay in lodging the complaint," the Court reasoned. .On the point of whether sanction would be required to prosecute the police officer, the Court looked into the question of whether he can avail the protection accorded under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which covers acts done by public servants in the course of their official duty..The Court pointed out that "illegal detention and custodial torture are not part and parcel of the duty of the police officers". .Therefore, the protection under Section 197, CrPC, did not come into picture and no prior sanction was required to proceed against such police officers, held the Court. .Further, the Court observed that there was a clear prima facie case against the accused as the victim was dragged out from his house, and not provided with any legal aid. In custody, the victim was prone to custodial torture and illegal detention, the Court observed.."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. 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. However it appears that this victim has taken the courage and has discussed the matter with his community leaders. Any person, who has suffered this kind of atrocity would not go around canvassing the same ... Such being the case, it is to be held that there is a clear prima facie case against the accused", the order stated..Relying on the photographs produced by the special public prosecutor, the Court further noted that the victim had suffered injuries on his hands and legs. This corroborated the alleged case of illegal detention and custodial torture, the Court found..On these grounds, the Court held that the said case constitutes a clear prima facie case against the accused and that it attracts Section 18A of the SC/ST Act.."When there is a clear prima facie case, it attracts the provision of Section 18A of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and prohibits considering the anticipatory bail. At the same time when the alleged incident is so heinous and shocking in nature, extending the benefit of anticipatory bail would have 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 reason for not extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner / accused," the Court said. .With these observations, the Court denied the grant of anticipatory bail to the police officer. .[Read Order]