On June 1 Chikkamagaluru Court refused anticipatory bail to a police SI Arjun Gowda. The sub-inspector moved a bail petition before the court which sought the benefit of anticipatory bail concerning crime committed May 22 registered by Gonibeedu police for the offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 504, 506, 330, 348 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(vii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
The case of the prosecution was that on May 10, the complainant was asked by K.E.Ramesha and K.B.Parameshto to accompany them along with their large group of people. It was said that the mob wanted to talk regarding a phone call made to the Anuya. The complainant rushed and called the police helpline number and when police arrived they questioned the mob but the mob denied everything police asked then the accused of this case SI Gowda of Gonibeedu police station was called. When he arrived there without any enquiry asked the complainant to sit in the jeep and when the complainant asked the reason the accused abused him with foul language. The accused took him to the police station where he tied him up and assaulted him while questioning the relationship of the complainant with the girl Anuya. The complainant stated that he talked with Anuya only about 6 months back and the said concern was resolved. The accused still abused him and call him names based on his caste. The complainant was mercilessly beaten up by the accused and when he asked the accused for water, on the instruction of the accused the second accused by name of Chethan passed urine to the complainant. After that, the complainant was compelled to lick the urine from the ground. As a result of this level of heinous ill-treatment, the complainant lost sensation in his body. The accused restricted the parents to meet with the complainant and also threatened the complainant not to bring anything before anyone regarding the things done to him.
The bail petition was filed stating that the accused was an innocent and hard-working officer and he belonged to a respectable family. The prosecution opposed the bail petition stating that this was a prima facie case.
The court found that the nature of the crime was one of the most heinous because of urinating upon the victim and forced him to lick from the floor. The court said that this level of atrocity could harm an individual's dignity. A person who was subjected to this atrocity would suffer shock and it would be difficult for him to state his condition and seek redressal.
The court also stated that the victim was taken by the officer without any reasonable cause as neither the complaint was not made against him nor he was a suspect. He was illegally detained and was subjected to custodial torture and also no legal aid was assisted to him in the meantime. The court concluded that granting bail to the officer could put the life of the victim in danger and considering that the officer was an influential person in the police department, to avoid any influence on the investigation the court denied the anticipatory bail.
"When there is a direct prima facie case, it draws the 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, extending the benefit of anticipatory bail would have a serious adverse impact on the society" the court said.