HC Raps Karnataka Police for Bringing Udupi Hindutva Leader to B’lore

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday strongly questioned the conduct of Whitefield Police in connection with the alleged detention of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti convenor Mohan Gowda, asking why the police brought him from Udupi when he had been served a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to appear before the police after three days.

Justice M Nagaprasanna also took exception to the police station's handling of CCTV footage and its explanation that power fluctuations had affected the system, sarcastically suggesting that Whitefield Police Station be renamed "Darkfield Police Station."

"Remove that name and call it the 'Darkfield Police Station' in the Whitefield area," the judge told the DCP after being informed that the CCTV system was not functioning properly.

The court questioned the DCP over the absence of CCTV footage in a matter before a coordinate Bench and asked why the police had attributed it to a power failure. "You work in darkness? Your activities may be dark. It's called Whitefield Police Station," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The judge then questioned the police action in travelling to Udupi and bringing Gowda to Bengaluru.

"Where was the necessity to go to Udupi, pick him up and bring him here? For what offence?" he asked repeatedly.

When the DCP said the police had not arrested Gowda but had recorded his statement and sent him back, the judge said, "By bringing him here, you have taken away his liberty."

The court also questioned how a police constable could register the complaint at around 2 am and how police personnel subsequently travelled to Udupi.

"A constable registers a complaint. All of you travel to Udupi to get the person, the so-called accused, for what? For what, sir? Who is giving you instructions?" Justice Nagaprasanna asked.

The bench also said this action could be because 'someone's ego was hurt'.

The DCP maintained that Gowda had come in his own car and had volunteered to come.

The judge, however, asked, "Who will volunteer to come to a police station? Is the police station some holy place?"

The proceedings concerned a suo motu case registered after Gowda allegedly described the cancellation of comedian Kunal Kamra's proposed Bengaluru show as a "victory" for Hindu unity.

The police alleged that the social media post had caused social disharmony.

The court also questioned the use of the Section 35(3) BNSS notice, under which Gowda was asked to appear before the police after three days.

"You told him to come after three days. What was the urgency in the meantime?" the judge asked.

Justice Nagaprasanna said that if a person failed to appear after the stipulated period, the police could proceed in accordance with law, but warned against exercising police powers prematurely.

"He did not come that day? Arrest him. In accordance with law. Before that, if you wield your power, it becomes arbitrary," he said.

The judge also objected to the police bringing four personnel from Udupi and questioned the DCP about the instructions given to the investigating officer.

"Standing tall will not make you tall in law. You should bend down to the law," Justice Nagaprasanna told the police officer.

At one point, the judge warned that a departmental inquiry could be ordered and that an adverse entry could be made in the concerned officer's service record.

"You cannot take the liberty of citizens for granted just because you are in a uniform," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The judge further observed, "You may escape anybody's eyes, but when it comes to the eyes of the court, you cannot escape."

"This has become-the police themselves have to be policed now. What a state!" he remarked.

The court said it would direct the Director General and Inspector General of Police to issue guidelines to all police stations on compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

Justice Nagaprasanna said any police officer violating the law with impunity should face departmental inquiry, apart from the possibility of costs being imposed when such conduct is brought before the court.

The DCP sought time to examine the issues and said he would bring the matter to the notice of the DG and IG.

The judge, however, said he would pass an order on the issue.

The court also questioned the DCP about the alleged interference of Whitefield Police in another property dispute, observing that similar concerns had arisen repeatedly in matters involving the station.