Individuals cannot be listed as rowdies without adhering to established guidelines and ensuring due process, particularly for those acquitted of offenses.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioners are before the Court in these petitions on a frequent circumstance of they being called for parade or being harassed by the police unnecessarily.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the petitioners are drawn or will be drawn in the list of rowdies is the apprehension. In the event that is to be drawn, the learned counsel submits that the law as declared by the Co- ordinate bench in W.P.No.4504 of 2021, disposed on 22.04.2022, should be followed in the case of B.S.PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS .

3. The learned AGA submits that the petitions are premature as these petitions are instituted only on an apprehension that the petitioners are being called by the police for the purpose of parade or investigation or enquiry as the cases would be.

4. Be that as it may. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance that has led the petitioners to this Court, it is needless to observe that the State would not flout the law as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of B.S.PRAKASH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.4504/2021 DISPOSED ON 22.04.2022, in which the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

“3. The petitioner is said to have got himself embroiled in several crimes for the offences punishable under Sections 110(E) and (G) of the Cr.P.C. and all those cases have been closed on acquittal. In certain other cases for offences punishable under Indian Penal Code as well.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the offences he would seek to place reliance upon the order passed by this Court in an identical circumstances. This Court in W.P. No.28554/2023 disposed on 29^th February 2024 had passed the following order:

“3. Facts in brief germane, are as follows:

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.723/2009 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 109, 149 r/w. 120B of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The police investigates into the matter and files a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Subsequent, to the said crime, another crime comes to be registered in Crime No.244/2012 for the offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 332, 307, 302, 506, 114 r/w. 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The third case comes to be registered in Crime No.20/2016 for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

4. The police file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. Based upon these crimes registered against the petitioner and the trial being pending, the name of the petitioner is drawn in the list of rowdies maintained before respondent No.4 - Nelamangala Police Station. Challenging drawing up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.14560/2022. The co-ordinate bench disposed the petition on 25.08.2022, by directing that all action be taken in terms of the guidelines laid down in W.P.No.4504/2021. The representation was directed to be considered with regard to the specific grievance vented out by the petitioner. Then comes the very same impugned order of rejection of the representation on several grounds. This is what has driven the petitioner before this Court, in the subject petition, yet again.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of the Grama Panchayath and due to political rivalry and factors of the kind has lead drawing up the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of Rule 1059 of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1965, a person’s name can be drawn in the list of rowdies in terms of the cond