Without a prescribed legal procedure for summoning rowdy sheeters, the police's reliance on oral summons violates personal liberties, underscoring the need for balance between law enforcement and fundamental rights.

ORDER :

R. NATARAJ, J.

The petitioner has sought for a direction to all the officers of the Karnataka State Police Department to issue a notice to him whenever his appearance is needed for the purpose of enquiry or investigation.

2. The petitioner contends that as per the records maintained by the Police, he has been termed as a "rowdy sheeter". He contends that the Yelahanka Police Station registered a suo motu case on 20.02.2017 in Crime No.58/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and Sections 30 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was not named as an accused but he claimed that he was later implicated in the said case. He contends that between 08.02.2017 and 21.02.2017, he was in Police custody in Crime No.42/2017 registered by Yelahanka Police Station. After he was implicated in the case, provisions of the Karnataka Control Of Organized Crimes Acts, 2000 (for short, 'the KCOCA') were invoked against the petitioner and he was in custody from February 2017 till November 2018. He was released on bail on 14.11.2018 in Spl.C.C. No.414/2017 registered by Yelahanka Police Station, but he was taken into custody by the Parappana Agrahara Police Station and he was taken to the Police station where the officers of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) took him to their office for the purpose of conducting enquiry. He claimed that he was set free after 11 p.m. He was directed to attend the CCB office for the next three days failing which he was threatened of being implicated in a case related to murder of one Mr. Ravi, Ex-Mayor of Tumakuru. The petitioner claims that he complied with the directions of the CCB officer. He claims that on 10.04.2019, his wife received a call from a mobile subscriber No.9480801545 and she was told to inform the petitioner to be present at the CCB office on 12.04.2019 at 10.00 a.m. to attend a rowdy parade being conducted by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the CCB office where a rowdy parade was conducted by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 asked a few questions to which the petitioner answered. However, without any provocation, the respondent No.2 lost his cool and threatened the petitioner by raising his baton and abused him. The petitioner claims that he remained silent which infuriated the respondent No.2 further and he started abusing the petitioner, caught hold of him by his ear and hair and pushed him around. The respondent No.2 informed his subordinate Mr.Balraj to lock him up and conduct a detailed enquiry. The petitioner claims that he was taken inside the CCB office and was abused by the respondent No.2. Petitioner claims that he was taken to his house and his house was searched without the authority of law and since they found nothing in the house, he was brought back to the CCB office and released at about 10.30 p.m. He was directed to attend the CCB office again on 13.04.2019. When he visited the CCB office on 13.04.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., the respondent No.2 was not present. The Police Officers present in the CCB office conducted an enquiry and allowed the petitioner to go home at 7 p.m. He was directed to again come back on 14.04.2019. The petitioner claims that he again visited the CCB office on 14.04.2019 at 10 a.m. on which day too, the respondent No.2 was not available. The Police officers enquired with the petitioner and released him by 1 p.m. He was asked to come again on 15.04.2019. On 15.04.2019, the petitioner visited the CCB office, but the respondent No.2 was not available and the Police officers con