Karnataka High Court
Nagu Alias Nagesh Tanaji Modekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100139/2021
BETWEEN:
NAGU @ NAGESH TANAJI MODEKAR,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SAMBRA,
TALUK & DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
REP. BY ADDITIONAL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF KCOC
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE), BELAGAVI
IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.108/2021 DATED 01.03.2021 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT (ACCUSED NO.20) VIDE CHARGE
SHEET, ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN GOKAK TOWN
PS. CRIME NO.72/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 109, 115 R/W 34, 35, 37 AND 149 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3(2), 3(4) OF THE KCOCA ACT, 2000 (KCOCA) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL
JUDGE), BELAGAVI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.202/2020.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2021 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
2
OF JUDGMENT' ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2021 FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
IA No.1/2021 is filed for condoning the delay. Considering the grounds, IA No.1 is allowed.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act,2000 ( for 'KCOC Act') for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.108/2021 and sought for enlarging the appellant/Accused No.20 on bail in Special Case No.202/2020 arising out Crime No. 72/2020 of Gokak Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120B, 212, 201, 109, 115, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, 35, 37 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(V-a), 8(1)(A) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 01/2016) (for short, 'SC & ST Act') and Section 25(1)(A), 25(1)(B) ,VI(6) & (7) of Arms Act, 1959 (Amended Act, 2019) and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3 3(5) and 4 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2020 ( for short, KCOC Act).
3. The brief facts leading to the case are that, one Mr. Deepak Ingalgi, the resident of Gokak Town, has filed a complaint against some of the accused. The deceased Siddappa Arjuna Kanamaddi (for short, 'Siddappa') was the State President of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsh Samiti and the accused are from Maratha Community. The case was registered against the accused in respect of murder of one Rohit Patil and having grudge, on 06.05.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons having knowledge that the deceased Siddappa belongs to Scheduled Caste, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and came in many number of vehicles to Adi Jambav Nagar Cross at Gokak Town, abused Siddappa with reference to his caste and assaulted him with swords and machetes causing bleeding grievous injuries. When the complainant and others tried to intervene, they were given life threat and later on, Siddappa was admitted to the hospital and there his statement was recorded through video, which disclosed the identity of assailants. The said Siddappa succumbed to injuries on 07.05.2020 at about 4.00 a.m. During the course of 4 investigation, Investigating Officer got information that the present appellant, who is accused, being a Member of Tiger Gang in Gokak Town was collecting Hafta and creating apprehension in the mind of the Business Community. It is also alleged that, he was having telephonic conversions with Accused No.2 regularly and the mobile CDRs were collected, and charge sheet was filed showing him as Accused No.20.
4. The appellant approached the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition. Hence, he filed this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the appellant is innocent of the charges alleged and he is a vegetable vendor doing business with his grand mother in Gokak and he used to submit every day night the waste vegetables to Godhama of Accused No2 and he had contact with him only in business transactions, and he is not concerned with other allegations. He would also contend that the provisions of KCOC Act are not applicable to the appellant and there is no bar for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. 5
6. Per contra, the learned SPP has seriously objected the appeal on the ground that the present appellant is declared as a proclaimed offender by issuing proclamation and the record disclose that he was the part of the Gang indulged in collecting Hafta by extortion and his contention that he is not involved in any other crime, is not a ground and his involvement and assistance in the activities of the Gang itself establish the offence and hence, he prayed for rejection of the appeal.
7. The allegation of the prosecution is that, the appellant was the Member of Organised Crime Syndicate known as Tiger Gang in Gokak Town and was engaged in collecting Hafta from wealthy persons in the Town by extortion by creating fear in the society. Though it is argued that he is a vegetable vendor, the records disclose that he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his income. The allegations against him were regarding the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the KCOC Act. Further, the provisions of KCOC Act are invoked after obtaining sanction and charge sheet has been laid down. Now the contention that, 'the provisions of KCOC Act are not attracted' holds no water 6 and the remedy is somewhere else. Further, the documents produced by the prosecution disclose that, the appellant was a proclaimed offender and on 07.02.2020, an order of proclamation was issued against the present appellant along with Accused Nos. 18 & 19 and that itself clearly established that the appellant is not easily accessible . When a proclamation is issued against the appellant, he cannot seek discretionary relief. Further, when the provisions of KCOC Act are already invoked by submitting the charge sheet against him, the provisions of Section 22(3) of KCOC Act comes into effect and as such anticipatory bail cannot be granted, as there is a bar.
8. When the appellant is a proclaimed offender, granting anticipatory bail amounts to nullifying the said order itself. The said order is not challenged or set aside. Such an order cannot be nullified by such an attempt.
(1) Further, the statement of 51 witnesses disclose his involvement in collecting Hafta. Further he was regularly in telephonic conversion with Accused Nos.1 to 5, 8, 12, 15 to 17 and 19, which is not explained which is evident of 7 CDR. He was also witness to sale deed in favour of Accused Nos.1 & 2.
(2) Apart from that, confessional statement of Accused Nos.1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 15 to 17 establish his involvement and the said statements are admissible in evidence under Section 19 of KCOC Act. As such, prima facie material is also available against him.
9. Under these circumstances, question of entertaining the appeal for granting bail does not arise at all and the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*