IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY WRIT PETITION (HC) No.118 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Mrs. Jacina Glenys W/o. Samuel Russel Prasad, Aged about 35 years, Presently residing at; No.9/3, 2nd Cross, Hennur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 084.
(By Sri. Vishnu Hegde, Advocate) AND:
1. The Government of Karnataka Represented by Secretary of Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Superintend of Police, Parappana Agrahara Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru-560 100.
…Petitioner 3. The Inspector of Police, Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Pulakeshinagar, Bengaluru-05.
…Respondents (By Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri. S.V.Giri Kumar, AGA) **** This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of Habeas Corpus by releasing Mr.Samuel Russel Prasad, in proceedings Crime No.151/2018 registered by the 3rd respondent pending proceedings before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-54) and issue necessary directions to the respondents for the release of the said detainee and grant any other appropriate relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), coming on for Orders this day, K.N. PHANEENDRA, J., made the following:
O R D E R We have carefully perused the contents of the writ petition and also the Statement of Objections filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent - State.
2. This writ petition is filed alleging that one Mr.
Samuel Russel Prasad was in illegal or unlawful custody of the Respondent - Police.
3. But the learned Additional Government Advocate in his objections statement has categorically stated that a criminal case was registered against the aforesaid person in Crime No.151/2018 under Section 8 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and he was legally arrested by the Police and the said person was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 13-10-2018 and in fact, the learned Judge has remanded the accused to the judicial custody upto 27-10-2018. In the meantime, the said person has made an application for grant of bail which came to be rejected by the said jurisdictional Court on 23-10-2018. Further during the pendency of the present petition, an application was also made by the alleged detenue under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same came to be allowed. Therefore, in view of the above said circumstances, the said alleged detenue was legally arrested and he has been in legal custody of the Police and the Court for some time and till he was released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for consideration of a legal point that the detenue even without he being produced before the jurisdictional Court and have his presence either by means of personal presence or through video conference, the learned Magistrate has extended the judicial custody, which is illegal.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the said legal aspect has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions.
6. However, the learned counsel did not turn up to convince this Court with regard to this particular aspect. Therefore, we reserve this point to be considered in some other case, if necessary.
7. With these observations, as the detenue is not in any illegal custody or unlawful custody of any body, muchless the respondent – Police and presently he is on bail, this writ petition for habeas corpus does not survive for consideration.
Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BMV*