IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W.P.No. /2020 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: H.L.Vishala Raghu, Advocate, S/o. Late. H.N. Lingegowda, Aged about 44years, No.1922/A, 5th Cross, Subhash Nagar, Mandya – 571 401 Petitioner AND 1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Government of Karnataka VidhanaSoudha Bangalore – 560001. 2. The Director General of Police Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Beside RBI, Bangalore – 560001. 3. The Commissioner of Police No.2, Ali Asker Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore- 560051. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police Chickpet Sub-Division No.9, 3,Balepet Main Road, Upparpet, Chickpet, Bangalore – 560009. 5. Sri.Suresh.M.R Major, Police Inspector Upparpet Police Station Bangalore – 560001. 6. The National Investigation Agency Sy No.41/14, Khanamet, Madhapur, (Hi-Tech City-JNTU Road), Hyderabad- 500085 Represented by its Director General 7. Amulya Leona Noronha Aged about 19 years Resident of Gubbugadde Village, Surya Temple Post,Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District Presently residing at Anai Apartment 10th J Cross, Nagavarapalya, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore Respondents MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Petitioner is a practicing advocate at Mandya and other part of Karnataka,he is a patriotic, and he is member of Karnataka State Bar Council. Petitioner is hail from Freedom Fighter family and whenever there is a threat to National Interest and integrity, he will not hesitate to knock the doors of justice and in a case pertaining to disrespect to our National Flag, Anthem. 2. Petitioner is highly aggrieved of the inaction of Respondents No.2 to 5 in not initiating appropriate timely action against Respondent No.7/Accused by filing the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 (2) (a) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 thereby facilitating the said Respondent No.7/Accused to obtain statutory bail though the said Respondent No.7/Accusedwas not entitled for a bail as the learned Magistrate had rejected her bail application at the first instance and the offences alleged against Respondent No.7/Accused are serious in nature and are concerning the peace and integrity of our Nation and the Investigation requires to be handed over to the National Investigation Agency. 3. The case of the prosecution leading to the arrest of Respondent No.7/Accused is that on 20-2-2020 at about 6.50 Pm, Respondent No.7/Accused was speaking in a program organized to protest against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), The National Register of Citizens (NRC) &National Population Register (NPR) at the Freedom Park, Bangalore and Respondent No.7/Accused shouted slogan as “Pakistan Jindabad” several times in the mike on the stage wherein there was a huge crowd and act of Respondent No.7/Accused was an attempt to bring enmity between different community and affecting the unity and integrity of the nation and Respondent No.7/Accused instigated the people and committed breach of peace and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.124 (A), 153 (B), 5050 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in Crime No.29/2020 by Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7/Accused was produced before the learned 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore on 20-2- 2020 and the criminal case was registered as C.C.No.5731/2020 and the bail application moved by Respondent No.7/Accused was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Copy of the entire order sheet in C.C.No.5731/2020 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A. 4. Respondent No.7/Accused was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody as her bail application came to be rejected. Thereafter Respondent No.7/Accused moved an application under Sec.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of statutory bail contending that as Respondents 2 to 5 failed to file the Charge Sheet and that Respondent No.7/Accused has been in custody for 95 days, she is entitled for statutory bail. The Investigating Officer namely Respondent No.5 has filed the Charge Sheet only on 3-6-2020 after the period of 90 days. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 10-6-2020 in C.C.No.5731/2020 has enlarged respondent No.7/Accusedon bail. Copies of the order dated 10-6-2020, FIR and Complaint are produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B, C and D. 5. It is submitted that time and again this Hon’ble Court have observed that the Investigating officer is duty bound to complete the investigation and file the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time of 90 days failing which the Accused has to be extended the benefit of statutory bail under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.. 6. In the case of Kashmir students Sedition case, wherein the students were arrested for posting videos of them speaking in favour of Pakistan which was widely circulated and though this Hon’ble Court denied bail, in view of the Investigating Officernot filing the charge sheet within the stipulated time, they were released on statutory bail under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the said investigating Officer has been suspended for not filing the Charge Sheet in time. 7. In the instant case, it is a deliberate act to facilitate the accused to obtain statutory bail and the Respondents 2 to 5 are solely responsible for the delay as there is no proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is conducting the Investigation efficiently and ensure that the said Investigating Officer in any criminal case, files the Charge sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Sedation charges serious in nature and the Investigating officer came to know during the investigation that Respondent No.7/Accused is associated with an organization which is funding for these acts which are against the National interest. Therefore in view of the serious administrative lapse by Respondents 2 to 5, Respondent No.7/Accused has obtained statutory bail and she may abscond. Serious lapsed cannot be overlooked.Respondents 1 to 5have to immediately seek for cancellation of the Bail granted to Respondent No.7/Accused. 9. The National Investigation Agency is a state agency established by the Indian Government to combat terror in India. It acts as the Central Counter Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency. The Agency deal with terror related crimes across states without special permission from the states. The Branch office of the National Investigation Agency at Hyderabad namely Respondent No.6 is having jurisdiction over all the southern states including Karnataka. Respondents 1 to 5 should handover the investigation to Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigation Agency for further probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links. 10. In these circumstances, necessary directions are required to be issued to Respondents 2 to 4 to immediately suspend the Investigating Officer namely Respondent No.5 for serious administrative lapses and further direct Respondents 1 to 4, to formulate proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is efficiently handling the Investigation of a Criminal Case and to ensure that in all criminal cased, the Charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further directions are required to be issued to Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency tofurther probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links.Therefore the petitioner has approached this court for necessary directions to the Respondents on the following among other grounds. 11. The Petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition in respect of the subject matter of this case and no other suit or proceedings are pending in respect of the subject matter of this case. The Petitioner has paid the required Court Fee of Rs.100/- on the Memorandum of this Writ Petition. The Petitioner has no other alternate remedy and therefore have approached this Hon’ble Court for necessary directions to Respondents on the following among other grounds. GROUNDS: 12. Admittedly Complainant is police inspector, who has filed complaint before the Uparapet policestation at Bangalore, since he was eye witness to entire facts and circumstance of the case. It is further submitted that, 5th respondent is also very much present at the time of incident at freedom park, Bangalore. And 5th respondent have personal knowledge about the criminal offence did by the accused / 7thRespondent. 13. It is submitted that 5th Respondent is responsible Police Inspector and he is Investigation Officer to Crime No.0029/2020 of his station and he must have complete knowledge with respect to jurisprudence of Criminal Procedure Code. Once it is registered as a cognizable offence, 5th Respondent being a duty bounded person take all responsible legal measurement regarding investigation, recording witness statement, spot mahazer and other relevant materials to file necessary charge sheet before the jurisdictional Courts. If, investigation officer failed to file charge sheet within stipulated period under section 167 of Cr.P.C., it is nothing but a deliberately discharging his duty. The present case in hand is heinous offence against the Petitioner’s Nation (Hindustan). And this fact is within the complete knowledge of 5th Respondent/ Investigation officer and his higher authority i.e., Respondents No.1 to 4. The slogan spoken by the accused under the visibility of public seen which was against to the unity of the Country and the said news widely telecasted throughout the country and world.