IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED: THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2009 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA__oi£ELLUfg D' D CRIMINAL PETITION Ne;i.'ADé2'3e12oo-as -- v ' BETWEEN Sri. Aruna Poojary S/o Sesu Poojary Age 28 years R/a Kalkui Aiike House _a ; Sangabettu Village ' Bantwa1Ta1uk,:' D _ Bikamakatte 1 . it D. K. District ' PETITIONER [By srig, K; M.' Natargj,.A'::::;§c.§te) AND it it it The of Kafnataka 'D it - ReVprese'ntet:¥._by its State __ » Puh_1ic._Prosecutor " High CvoL1rt'vofi.Eg;_.rnataka i3a'n.ga1o1~é;_~--__ RESPONDENT
V . {Bfsn Rfs. Bhat, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
__ Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioners praying that this
VW’Hon’b1e Court may be pleased to quash the order dated
29.3.2006 passed by the 11 Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, D.K.,’l\/iangalore in Crl.R.P. No.10/2006 and all
further proceedings pursuant thereto.
This Petition coming on for Admission V.
Court made the following:
Heard the learned Counse1z7for~–_the lnetitionerv
perused the impugned order chhallengeffinffrirriinat
Revision Petition No. 10/2006-“da.t_ed’ on the file
of the H Additional District’and.i?3essiens:LJudge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaloiie.
”” 182.’;/2oos_””o”n” the file of the Bantwal
Rural v”PoliCeV registered for the offences
punishableiinderg 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC., alleging
that’itheoigaccuseddare—–ii1vo1ved in the murder of Panchayath
President untoward incident that occurred at the
Jathra. incident was between the deceased and other
peoole. that xdllage and so also the other Village.
3′ “V.:ijV»t!lccording to the investigating agency, they filed an
application before the learned Magistrate ie, the
V Wéornmittal Court seeking direction to accused Nos. 1 to 3 to
have Narco Analysis Test by the expert at Forensic Science
Laboratory {FSL] at Bangalore. This was opposed by the
accused persons and the learned Magistrate rejected”–.the
said application, which was challenged before..__thle_’efirst
Revisional Court and the learned Sessionspdudigeijallottredl K it
Criminal Revision Petition No..’h1mO/2006
handing over or directing the acclusedyfito
Analysis test is not handing ovento police it C
3. Aggrieved by the sai.dllord:e;r of~the Sessions Court,
the present petition is tiled’ settingaside the orders
of the revisiona’lCourt.¥_ On eariier’ occasion when there was
disputelwlithl accused Nos. 1 to 3 to
the police .euotoo§j_eebe’ts,z§{ee.o,..16.11.2005 till 18.11.2005 to
undergo poiygrapiitest at”CClBangalore, there was controversy
the parties—-«and the matter reached up to High
pl orders of the learned Magistrate to hand over
‘eeo’oeeo’ I to 3 to the police custody came to be
oooengeo in Criminal Revision Petition No. 305/2005 and
A X1′ ‘revision petition was dismissed confirming the order of
the ‘learned Magistrate. The same came to be challenged in
Criminal Petition No. 4686/2005 before this Court.
4. The learned Single Judge of this Court while
disposing of Criminal Petition No. 4686/2005, directed to
strictly adhere to the provisions of Section
placing reliance on the judgments of the it
holding that, the police cannot
months of their arrest and therefore’,
violation of mandate of pro\}1s_i:ori.,s of l’
According to the learned..Single*Judge,*-the period
allowable under Section’l’1t;i7 custody was
over and therefore,there”caijnot«..heV_litirtherllpolice custody
of the accuj:sed”..,_ direction to him
and other -A Narco Analysis Test is
nothingllbuit police custody and therefore,
theprders of thelllirst Revisional Court deserves to be set
aside. ‘T?here«,..e_Lre three accused persons in the present case,
The third~«.,acc.usved is on bail and other two accused are in
juoi..cial,_v’custody. Even for practical purpose though the
pl third ‘accused person is on bail, still he has to be held as a
it in judicial custody till the criminal case against him
completed and disposed of and he will be expected to
follow the directions of the Court.
5. So far as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned,
they are in judicial custody and the investigating
of the opinion that, if the accused persons ”
undergo Narco Anaiysis Test, it
commission of murder of political
would give some information for compietingi the
investigation. Apparently beca:use”‘–.of faeie case
against the accused aiso arrayed as
accused in thecase. 1 and 2,
who are in the expert to
undergo_the’~.N:artf;o__ directing the accused.
who on “before the FSL at Bangalore for
Narco will not amount to handing
oveffidttrfim to’M.pV_o1Vice custody. The persons in judicial
it cl. be directly produced before the expert on the
A expert for such test by the jail authorities.
This has nothing to do with the police taking to their
custody and producing them before the expert. The person
it on-bail has to appear before the concerned expert for such
” ….test as directed by the Magistrate. Therefore viewed from
any angle, one cannot say that the directions issued by the
First Revisional Court allowing the appiication o*F–__the
investigating agency amounts to police custody. it ”
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, .. V
Nsu/ —