MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226, 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 The Petitioners above named beg to submit as under: 1. The Petitioner are four separate individuals who have been residing at their respective address. There is no previous criminal records of any of the Petitioners. The Petitioner no. 1 was social worker. Petitioner No. 2 was helping family business. Petitioner No. 3 is a mechanical engineer by education and Petitioner No. 4 is a Social Worker. 2. The Petitioners herein are alleged accused persons in Cr. No. 45 of 2018 with Upparpet Police station for offense punishable U/sec 307, 120-B of IPC r/w Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and further in Cr. No. 221 of 2017 registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station and are filing the present petition to seek reliefs with regard to rights of getting proper legal assistance at the time of arrest by the Police and remand which was denied to the petitioners at the time of first remand and subsequent remand hearings arising out of the above mentioned cases. The issue raised herein is about violations of the constitutional provisions and non-implementation of the Supreme Court guidelines in it's letter and spirit by the concerned Magistrates being the 1st ACMM, 5th ACMM, 44th ACMM and 3 rd ACMM, Bengaluru - Respondent No. 3 to 6 respectively. Facts of the Case 3. It is submitted before this Hon ble court that one person named K.T. Naveen Kumar was shown to be arrested in the
above referred Cr. No. 45 of 2018, on 18.02.2018 of Upparpet Police Station and was transferred to judicial custody on 2.3.2018. From the said judicial custody he was again taken to Police custody in Cr. No. 221 of 2017, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station (Gauri Lankesh Murder Case) under relevant sections relating to murder and provisions of Arms Act on 2.3.2018 till 12.3.2018. As per police theory, K.T. Naveen Kumar was arrested along with bullets initially upon getting a tip off and his interrogation revealed his involvement in murder of Gauri Lankesh. It is an admitted position as on date that a chargesheet/ Police Report U/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed against K.T. Naveen Kumar on 30.5.2018 before completion of 90 days from the date of his arrest in Gauri Lankesh Murder Case. Curiously and surprisingly, no charge sheet has been filed in connection with Cr. No. 45 of 2018 registered with Upparpet Police Station. K.T. Naveen Kumar was granted bail in the very first hearing of his bail application by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5 th ACMM, Bangalore without any serious opposition from the prosecution. The prosecution did not challenge the said bail order till date. 4. It is submitted that the Petitioners herein were taken in custody by the police illegally without showing a formal arrest and apart from illegally confining the petitioners, torturing them and creating various bogus documents and evidences, the police have indulged in act of kidnapping. The formal police arrest shown by the police in Cr. No. 45 of 2018 is in fact a sham arrest memo. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested around 6.5.2018 and rest of the petitioners were arrested on 14.5.2018. Petitioners state that they reserve the right to initiate necessary legal proceedings with respect to such illegal detention and ill-treatment at an appropriate forum and at
appropriate time as the present petition is for the failure of the Respondents to extend legal aid to the petitioners. 5. It is humbly submitted that initially the accused persons were never produced before the Magistrate in its legal sense. Their signatures on various forms were obtained forcibly. It is very much clear that a fraud was committed by the police on the judiciary so that the accused could not vent out their grievances about torture, kidnapping and illegal detention in front of the Judge and the detention would continue. 6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 20.5.2018 and other 3 Petitioners no. 2 to 4 were arrested on 21.5.2018. The arrest was known to the family members of the petitioners only after the houses of some of the petitioners were raided. Subsequently, the Advocates for Accused filed Memo of Appearance and application U/s 41-D of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No. 45/2018 before the Hon'ble 5th ACMM on 24.05.2018 and the same was allowed. The Advocates for Petitioners went to Cottonpet Police Station on the same day, but the Police didn t allow the Advocates to meet them. On 25.5.2018 only Petitioner No. 1 was allowed to meet but on 26.5.2018, Advocates were not allowed to meet any of the Petitioners, where on 27.05.2018 only Petitioner No. 3 and 4 were allowed to meet. It was in the said meeting that the wounds on the body of Petitioner No. 4 i.e. Mr. Manohar Edave were observed by the advocates. He said he was not taken for medical checkups in Government Hospital, instead, he was administered pain killers and for that reason he was taken to one private hospital, namely Shrinivas Hospital. Due to such act of the Police, Advocates were compelled to file Memo for Contempt of the Court Order and also Memo directing to provide Medical Checkup for all the Accused on
28.5.2018. The copies of two memo filed by the advocates for accused before Hon ble 5 th ACMM Court on 28.5.2018 are produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively. 7. The Petitioners further submit that the Petitioners were held in consecutive police custody in two separate FIRs eventhough the investigation continued only with respect to one offence i.e. Gauri Lankesh Murder Case. Petitioners state that the remand proceedings were conducted in complete and utter violations of the constitutional rights of the petitioners as well as in violation of the directions of Supreme Court which are necessary to be enumerated before reading the remand orders in detail. It is necessary to have a look at the duties cast upon the Magistrates by the Constitution of India and also by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. The petitioners further submit that the constitution mandates in clear term that the accused does have a right to legal aid. It flows from the following provisions: a) Directive Principles - Article 39A - The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation of schemes of in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. b) Article 22(1) of Constitution - No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
9. The Petitioner submits, the constitutional provisions make is clear that the accused person has a constitutional right of legal aid it is the obligation of the State to provide for the same. The principles has time and again been upheld and reiterated by the Apex Court of the Country in a number of judgments, a few of them are enumerated herein below. In Khatri and others V/s State of Bihar (1981 SCC(1) 627), Supreme Court laid down as follows, Para 2. The State is under a constitutional obligation to provide free legal services not only at the stage of trial but also at the stage when the accused is first produced before the Magistrate as also when he is remanded from time to time. Para 3. but even this right to free legal service would be illusory for an indigent accused unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom he is produced informs him of such right. It would make mockery of legal aid if it were left to a poor indigent and illiterate accused to ask for free legal aid services. Legal aid would become merely a paper promise and it would fail it's purpose. The Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears must be held under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State. Unless he is not willing to take advantage, every other State in the country should make provisions for grant of free legal services to an accused who is unable to to engage on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation. Copy of the said judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C.
10. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab V/s State of Maharashtra (the Mumbai Terror Attack Case), Crl. Appeal No. 1899-1900 of 2011 issued directions to all Magistrates in the Country as follows, '484. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the right to access to legal aid, to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner, arises when a person arrested in connection with a cognizable offense is first produced before a Magistrate. We, accordingly hold that it is the duty and obligation of the magistrate before whom a person accused of committing cognizable offence is first produced to make him fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner and, in case he has no means to engage a lawyer of his choice, that one would be provided to him from legal aid at the expense of the State. The right flows from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and needs to be strictly enforced. We, accordingly, direct all the magistrates in the country to faithfully discharge the aforesaid duty and obligation and further make it clear that any failure to fully discharge the duty would amount to dereliction in duty and would make the concerned magistrate liable to departmental proceedings.' Copy of the judgment - relevant portion is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. 11. It is exactly on this aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar (Cri. Appeal 1277/2014) made the following observations at various places in it's judgment as follows,
''The power to authorize detention is a very solemn function. It affects the livery and freedom of citizen and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.'' Copy of the judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E. 12. At this background, a perusal of the first remand orders in Cr.No.45/2018 and 221/2017 passed on 18.2.2018, 2.3.2018, 20.5.2018 and 21.5.2018, 31.5.2018 with respect to the petitioners as well as the first arrestee mentioned herein above. i.e. Mr. K.T.Naveen kumar (Accused No. 1) reveals a serious and unfortunate scenario. The summary of the remands is as follows;
Arestee Name Date of Remand Crime No. Name of Court Magistrate s name K.T. Naveen Kumar 18.2.2018-26.2.2018 K.T. Naveen Kumar 26.2.2018-2.3.2018 K.T. Naveen Kumar 2.03.2018 (J.C) K.T. Naveen Kumar 2.03.2018 12.03.2018 K.T. Naveen Kumar 12.03.2018 (J.C) Sujith 20.5.2018 Amol Kale 21.5.2018 Amit Degvekar 21.5.2018 Manohar Edave 21.5.2018 Sujith 28.5.2018 45/2018 - Upparpet PS 45/2018 - Upparpet PS 45/2017 - R.R 45/2018 Upparpet PS 45/2018 - Upparpet PS 45/2018 - Upparpet PS 45/2018 - Upparpet PS 45/2018 - Upparpet PS Amol Kale 30.5.2018 (J.C) 45/2018 - Upparpet PS Amit Degvekar 30.5.2018 (J.C) 45/2018 - Upparpet PS Manohar Edave 30.5.2018 (J.C) 45/2018 - Upparpet PS Sujith 30.5.2018 (J.C) 45/2018 - Upparpet PS Sujith 31.5.2018-11.6.2018 Amol Kale 31.5.2018-11.6.2018 Amit Degvekar 31.5.2018-11.6.2018 Manohar Edave 31.5.2018-11.6.2018 Sujith 11.6.2018 14.6.2018 Amol Kale 11.6.2018 14.6.2018 Amit Degvekar 11.6.2018 14.6.2018 Manohar Edave 11.6.2018 14.6.2018 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 3rd ACMM 3rd ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 44 th ACMM (I/C) 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM 5th ACMM Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Mr. V. Prakash Mr. V. Prakash Mr. Somashekhar Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Ms. Mala Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara Mr. Somashekhara 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. V. Prakash 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. V. Prakash 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. V. Prakash 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. V. Prakash 3rd ACMM 3rd ACMM 3rd ACMM 3rd ACMM Mr. V. Prakash Mr. V. Prakash Mr. V. Prakash Mr. V. Prakash
Arestee Name Date of Remand Crime No. Name of Court Magistrate s name Sujith 14.6.2018 (J.C) Amol Kale 14.6.2018 (J.C) Amit Degvekar 14.6.2018 (J.C) Manohar Edave 14.6.2018 (J.C) 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. Jagdeesh 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. Jagdeesh 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. Jagdeesh 1 st ACMM (I/C) Mr. Jagdeesh following, 13. The remand Orders as mentioned above unfold the i. Learned Magistrate did not intimate the arrestee persons that they have a right to engage advocate of their choice.the provisions that if they do not have resources or they are indigent persons or can't communicate with their advocate, then an advocate at the expenses of the State will be provided to them if they so request. ii. It was also not intimated that it is the choice of the arrestee persons to engage or not to engage a lawyer and to argue for himself. iii. Thus, ultimately no advocate of the choice of the arrestee was made available and argued on behalf of the arrestees including the petitioners and Mr. K.T. Naveen kumar on the first remand as well as on subsequent remands. iv. Along with this, if the orders are seen, they are clearly made in a routine, mechanical manner without application of mind. The copies of the remand orders sheets passed Learned Magistrates in both the above mentioned cases are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F series for the kind perusal of this Hon ble Court.
14. The Petitioner further submits that, it is also a matter of record that the Petitioner No.1 Mr. Sujith was to be produced before the Magistrate on 28.5.2018 for extension of remand. As the remand proceedings are supposed to happen in regular court hours and time, the advocates for the petitioner were waiting outside the concerned Court i.e. the then in-charge Court- 44 th ACMM presided by Respondent No. 6. Sometime in the afternoon it was revealed to the advocate for the petitioners that the remand proceedings were already over and had taken place early in the morning in the chamber of Respondent No. 6 at 10.30 a.m. It is further submitted that the case pertained to Cr. No. 45 of 2018 with Upparpet Police Station under Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and 307, 120B of IPC. It had no special or sensational status. Thus, the arrestee petitioner could not avail to engage advocate of his choice, they were not represented by anyone on the first remand on 20.5.2018, 21.05.2018 and even on second remand on 28.5.2018. Petitioner No. 1 did not even know of his legal rights at that time. Conducting the hearings of remand in closed chambers and that too at odd hours shows that either the Resp. No. 6 had lost sight of her duties and wanted to work as a part of investigating agency. Resp. No. 6 thus conspired with the police to deny/violate the rights of the petitioner or conducted the remand proceedings in a very casual, mechanical manner, acting just as a rubber stamp for the police. 15. The Petitioners further submits that, this is a serious violation of the judicial duty cast upon Resp. No.6. The petitioner does not know when the remand proceedings started and ended. He was not produced before the Magistrate in it s strict sense. He was just standing in the Court room and taken out the court hall. This fact itself says a lot. Holding in chamber proceedings
and that to not in court hours when there was possibility to hold the same during court hours and in open court was perfectly possible. Copy of the said second remand order - relevant portion dated 28.5.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. 16. The Petitioners further submits that it is also stated that on First remand on 31.5.2018 in Cr. No. 221 of 2017 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, the accused Manohar Edave and Sujith narrated the inhuman treatment meted out on them before the Hon'ble 1st ACMM Court while in custody of Upparpet/ Cottonpet Police Station. How they were beaten and how they were not allowed to meet their advocates by the police of Upparpet/Cottonpet Police Station despite of repeated requests violating the directions of Supreme Court in D.K. Basu s case. It seems to be most unfortunate that the cries of the accused who were put such difficulties in utter violation of law went on deaf ears and neither any action was taken upon or were reported in the order sheet. However the said incidence is reported by some media. A copy of such reporting by newspapers is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - H. 17. It is submitted that under these circumstances, it is quite clear that the rights of the petitioners are violated and therefore, they are entitled to compensation from the State as well as there is direct necessity to initiate departmental inquiries against the concerned Magistrates for dereliction of duty as also for contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is also necessity for involvement of mechanism/procedure whereby the rights of the any arrestee person is safeguarded. There may arise situations where an arrestee upon asking whether he will engage an advocate of his choice, replies in
affirmative, but the advocate is not present at in the Court as the time of remand is dependent on the arrest of the arrestee which is discretion of the police. 18. In such circumstances, a representation was submitted to the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 13.6.2018 for taking necessary steps against the Magistrates in the present case in particular and in the State in general. A copy of the said representation is annexed hereto and marked as Anenxure- J. 19. The petitioners further submits that as per vide Annexure -J which was submitted to Respondent No.1 on 13-06-2018, immediately on the next day itself i.e., on 14-06-2018, the petitioners are produced before the Hon ble 1 st ACMM court. As the regular court i.e., 3 rd ACMM was on leave, the petitioners are produced before the in-charge court at 1 st ACMM. It is very much relevant to state here itself that on 14-06-2018, the Police Custody given to Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police station/sit was going to end on that day. On 14-06.2018 when the petitioners are produced before 1 st ACMM, Amol Kale (Petitioner No. 3) explained in detail with respect to the police harassment before the Hon ble Magistrate of 1 st ACMM. The counsel who is appearing for petitioners urged the court to record the same & appealed to send the petitioners for medical examination as per the guidelines of Hon ble Supreme court to take further action. 20. It is further submitted that it is only on the repeated request by the advocate who are appearing for petitioners, finally the Hon ble Presiding Officer of 1 st ACMM/ 5 th Respondent recorded the statement of petitioners but further Respondent has not at all taken any steps in providing the medical checkup/treatment etc. The relavant copy of the order sheet
dated 14-06-2018 is herewith produced and marked as Annexure K. 21. The Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent No. 1, 3,4,5,6 having no other alternative and afficatious remedy, the he petitioners approaching this Hon ble court for proper direction/writ of mandamus under Art. 226 and 227 of Constitution of India from this Hon ble Court. The Petitioner have not filed any petition before this Hon ble Court or before any other court on the same ground. The Petitioners reserves the right and seeks the permission of this Hon ble court to raise and to submit Additional grounds at the time of hearing this petition. GROUNDS 22. That the right to legal aid follows from the Constitution and the burden is mainly on the Magistrates to see that the accused is not deprived of his rights. Supreme Court has expanded and reiterated this said principle. Therefore, this is a case where there is a clear violation of constitutional duties of the Magistrate and deprivation of the rights of accused. The petitioners suffered enormous loss due to this failure by the State and the Magistrates. Firstly, they had nobody to whom they can tell what happened to them. When the petitioners were tortured by police and threatened them not to disclose anything before the magistrate, they had nobody to take guidance. They were helpless in the Court. They had no knowledge of the Court proceedings. Another important fact was that two of the petitioners being Amol Kale and Amit Degvekar not knowing Kannada language could not understand the court proceedings and the formats they were compelled to sign on.
23. The Petitioners further submits that they could not represent themselves. In fact on 31.5.2018 when petitioners Mr Manohar Edave and Sujith tried to narrate the custodial torture and requested the advocate of their choice. They were asked to keep silent as reported by media in Annexure-G. This was like adding salt to the wound. The fundamental principle that every accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted guilty was brushed aside and the petitioners had a feeling of isolation, loneliness and that the whole governmental machinery including the judiciary had already branded them as die-hard criminals and unworthy of any rights. They felt that they had become an animal-like entities. The denial of legal aid caused physical, mental harrasement. Apart from the existence of the possibility that the legal aid might have ended police custody at earlier, the mental agony was unbearable. The magistrates treating the petitioners as a hardened criminal and not even recognizing their existance was unbearable. This loss is not only for the petitioners but for their family members as well. Therefore, this is a fit case to grant compensation to the petitioners. 24. That when the Law presumes that every single common citizen, whether educated or uneducated, old or young should know all provisions of law and ignorance of law can't be an excuse in any proceedings, it becomes all the more necessary that the judicial officers follow the same principle unscrupulously, unfailingly. Precisely, it is at this point that the Learned Magistrates in the both connected proceedings have completely failed to discharge their legal duties. The petitioners could not have such a complete knowledge of the issues. Besides a common man is under tremendous pressure when he is in police custody. He is not supposed to have
knowledge of law at his fingertips. Therefore, it is necessary for the Magistrate to educate the arrestee of his legal rights. 25. The Magistrates can not take an excuse of ignorance of law. The directions in all the cases referred hereinabove as also in many other cases passed by Hon ble Supreme Court must be followed in it's letter and spirit by Magistrates of the country and the state. If the Constitution of India expects all organs of the state to follow the orders of the Supreme Court, the burden is more on the subordinate Judiciary. 26. The legislator while making and amending the law envisaged such mistakes/errors or casual approach by the Magistrates. Therefore, it inserted Section 167(4) in by mandating that any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate authorizing detention will have to forward a copy of his order along with reasons for making it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. But, the said scheme of internal checks and balances seems not be working and there does not seem to be any change in the way magistrates have passed orders in the case. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to set the judicial machinery in right motion. 27. It is further submitted that the petitioners have sought for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with the observations/guidelines by the Apex Court in Ajmal Kasab's judgment as also for implementation of the directive principles of Constitution of India. The options stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court are not exclusive of each other but are inclusive. Therefore there is acute necessity to exhaust all remedies as the issue is very serious in nature. 28. Besides the right of an individual to seek compensation from the State on the violation of his right given by law, the failure of the Magistrates in discharging of their duties amount to
miscarriage of justice on a wider scale. In many cases, magistrates passing orders in a mechanical, routine, cavalier manner may vitiate trial also. 29. The role of Magistrate is pivotal in criminal proceedings, he is the first person from the judiciary to control and monitor the implementation of law irrespective of whether the case is triable by Session Court or not. The failure of the judiciary at such initial stage may not be able to be cured at later stage. 30. If such kind of routine and careless orders are passed in the capital of the State and that too in the cases which have drawn the attention of people, media and the State has constituted a Special Investigating Team, what would be the conditions in remote, Taluka place magistrates where even arrestee come from poor, uneducated background, they nor their family members having any knowledge of the legal provisions is something unthinkable. Therefore, intervention of this Hon'ble Court to set the wheels of justice right is necessary. 31. Such kinds of orders do not separate the judiciary from the investigating agencies, but creates an impression that judiciary is nothing else but an extension of the executive, i.e. the investigating agencies. In such situations, it would be an easy way for the police to dominate the accused telling them that you will not get any justice from the Magistrate as he will be passing order as we indicate. This would eventually turn into a serious deviation from the maxim, ' justice should not only be done, but must appear to be done' as also massive corruption and custodial violence at the hands of police. 32. In the light of the orders passed by the concerned magistrates in the present matter, it is necessary to find out the situation vis-a-vis to other magistrates in the state, reports need to be sought from the subordinate judiciary as to
compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The dereliction of duty by non-following the orders has to be punished in accordance with law by initiating departmental inquiry against each and every erring magistrate. 33. The exercise may look enormous but at the same time it is equally necessary to take it to it's logical end if we as a society, want to progress further and want to safeguard the rights of citizens in it's real sense. 34. There may be need to prescribe the procedure to be followed by the Magistrates/Session Judges in cases where the arrestee/accused is not represented by an advocate when brought before the court. In such a case, what specific action a Magistrate should take is not laid down anywhere. If the police can intimate such advocate in advance? if the Magistrate in such case can postpone the hearing of remand for some time? should the Magistrate appoint an advocate from state expenses for the arrestee if the advocate of the choice of the arrestee is not available? if so what should be the course of action till the further remand? if the arrestee is produced at the home of the Magistrate, it may not be easier for the advocate, to reach the home of Magistrate quite conveniently. In such cases, what should be course of action?. Such are the questions that must be answered by evolving a proper mechanism/passing directions both for the police and for the Magistrate where some questions which are not answered anywhere and therefore it is necessary to issue further procedural guidelines on this regard. 35. Such guidelines are also necessary as each magistrate finding out an easy solution for himself may not safeguard the rights of an arrestee. For example, the arrestee states before a magistrate at the time of first remand that he wishes to engage an advocate of his choice, but the same advocate is not
present before the court and police have not notified the same to the advocate or the remand proceedings are being held in the home of the magistrate. Then a situation arises where the magistrate may permit the advocate of his choice but he is not available, in such a case, the arrestee may not be defended by an advocate at all for the simple reason that his wish is accepted in principle but not implemented in actual. Such situations need to be properly handled without miscarriage of justice. Therefore, indulgence by this Hon'ble Court is necessary in the present matter. 36. There is a clear and complete violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners by not intimating their rights to engage an advocate of their choice, by not providing them with an advocate at the expenses of the state, by passing out orders in a casual manner. The remand orders are self-explanatory in that behalf and therefore, it is a fit case to grant compensation to the petitioners. 37. This is also a fit case to initiate necessary departmental proceedings against the erring magistrates presiding over in 5 th ACMM Court namely Mr. Somashekhara, 1st ACMM namely Mr. Jagadeesh and 3rd ACMM Court namely Mr. Prakash. 38. The was the second remand proceedings were handled by the Learned 44 th ACMM are nothing short of a casual manner and therefore, it is necessary to take necessary action against the Learned 44 th ACMM, Ms. Mala also. 39. This Hon'ble High Court also being the supervisor of administration of justice in the State, it is also necessary to call for the records from all over the state with particular reference to the implementation of the guidelines given in Khatri's Case (supra), Ajmal Kasab's case (supra) as well as such other guidelines issues by Hon'ble Supreme Court from
time to time such as in Arnesh Kumar's case. The National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commissions are the protectors of the human rights in the country. The present case is nothing else but a clear and complete violation of human rights of petitioners. The possibility of violation of human rights of accused persons in the part of State of Karnataka or in other states may not be ruled out. Therefore, it is high time that even the resepctive Commissions take upon themselves the responsibility to watch and protect the rights of the accused in this behalf. 40. The attitude of the Magistrates somewhere reflects a skin-saving attitude when the cases are assigned to him on a day due to non-availability of some other judge, such temporary incharge judge/magistrate normally does not want to pass any orders/ go any deeper into the issue and just wants to pass it on. This attitude of the judicial officers may cost common people their valuable time and also justice might be delayed in such cases. It is necessary to address this area by this Hon'ble Court. 41. It is also necessary to educate the common people as to their rights in this behalf, publishing in some newspapers may not be sufficient for the simple reason that a newspapers are the literature on one day and may be forgotten later. But such other methods such as publishing or portraying these guidelines in the Court hall itself, and also airing documentary film, short films on this subjects to be viewed by the public in cinema theatre/multiplex etc may serve the purpose in a way as the arrestee may be able to know and read the guidelines. For this reason also indulgence by this Hon'ble Court is necessary in the issue at hand.
PRAYER Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed, before this Hon ble Court to issue; a) A writ of mandamus, directing the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court, Respondent No.1 to call for the all records and proceedings with reference to all remand proceedings in FIR/Cr.No. 45 of 2018 registered with Upparpet Police Station on 18.2.2018 and FIR/Cr No. 221 of 2017, dated 5.9.2017 (C.C. No. 14578/2018) registered with Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station from the Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. b) A writ of mandamus, directing Respondents No. 3 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( one lac only) to each of the petitioners for failing to provide necessary legal aid to the petitioners. c) A writ of mandamus, directing the Registrar of the High Court of Karnataka to call for the records of remand proceedings from the subordinate courts in the state and direct to initiate departmental inquiries/actions against the erring/delinquent magistrates in a time bound manner. d) A writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure that all rights of arrestee person including the directions in D.K. Basu's case are communicated to the public at large in general and the arrestee persons in particular by adopting various necessary means such as displaying the same in the Magistrates' Court halls, by providing a handbill/pamplete to the arrestee at the time of arrest and recording the fact that such handbill was provided by the police to the arrestee by the magistrate and such other necessary steps.
e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue contempt notice to the erring magistrates i.e. respondents No. 3,4,5,6 respectively and further this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take necessary legal/departmental action against the erring/delinquent magistrates in the present case i.e. Respondents No. 3,4,5 and 6. f) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the National and State Human Rights Commission to prepare a suitable plan for education/implementation of the constitutaional rights of the accused/arrestee persons and implement the same in a time bound and effective manner. g) Such other directions and orders in the interest of justice may be passed. INTERIM PRAYER 1. It is humbly prayed that the report from the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court, State of Karnataka may be called on the remand proceedings in Crimes/First Information Reports i.e. FIR No. 45/2018 with Upparpet Police Station and FIR No. 221/2017 Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police within a period of one week and necessary order be passed upon it. 2. The Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court, State of Karnataka be kindly directed to call for remand records/reports from all over the State of Karnataka on dereliction of duty by the Magistrate thereby violating the constitutional rights of arrestee/accused persons and file the
same before this Hon'ble Court in a period on 1 month for passing further orders thereon. Place: Bangalore Date:.06.2018 Advocate for Petitioners