IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.18043-18045/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SRI V NAGARAJ S/O SRI VARADAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021 2. SRI GANDHI N S/O SRI V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/A NO. U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021 3. SRI SHASTRI N S/O SRI V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A NO. U 7, II MAIN ROAD II CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021 (BY SRI N SRIRAM REDDY, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HENNUR POLICE STATION BALACHANDRA LAYOUT BABUSABPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS BENGALURU-560043 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SRIRAMPURAM POLICE STATION SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A S PONNANNA, ADDL.AG. FOR R1 TO 4) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT THE INTERROGATION OF THE PETITIONERS DURING THEIR SURRENDER BEFORE THEM IN OPEN VIDEO CAMERA FROM THE TIME OF THEIR SURRENDER UPTO THEIR RELEASE AND TO CONDUCT THE INTERROGATION IN FRONT OF THEIR ADVOCATE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the learned Government Advocate. They are permitted to file their memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus directing the respondents-Police to conduct the interrogation of the petitioners during their surrender before them in front of Open Video Camera from the time of their surrender until they are released and also conduct interrogation in the presence of their Advocate.
3. Keeping in view the nature of the prayer as made, the details of the contention in the petition need not be reproduced in this order inasmuch as the petitioners claim is only that the investigation is to be conducted in a fair manner as has been sought by them in these petitions.
4. The consideration of the prayer also need not be adverted to in detail inasmuch as the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the apprehension as put forth is without basis since in any event the Investigating Officers are required to follow the law and the guidelines in that regard in any event has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal [(1997)1 SCC 418].
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Satpathy vs. Dani (P.L.) and another (AIR 1978 SC 1025) wherein the consideration made is also to the same effect.
6. If that be the position, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has laid down the procedure in such matters, it would build all concerned as provided under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. As such it is not necessary for this Court to reiterate the position except to observe that the respondents would follow the law and thereafter take action accordingly.
With the said observations, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms