Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Chandra Aras vs The State Of Karnataka, on 26 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 26th day of April 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100454/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100350/2017
IN CRL.P.NO.100454/2017
BETWEEN
JAGADISH CHANDRA ARAS
S/O SUBRAMANYA ARAS,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DODDAMMA TEMPLE
NEXT FLOOR, MANORAYANAPALYA,
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ANKOLA P.S.,
REPT. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
PETITIONER KINDLY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN CONNECTION
WITH SESSION CASE NO.129 OF 2014 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI (KCOCA SPL. JUDGE) IN ANKOLA POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 245 OF 2013 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
:2:
UNDER SECTIONS 302, 353, 307, 120-B, 212, 201, 419, 468,
471, 384, 388, 506 READ WITH 149 IPC AND SECTION 3, 8, 25
(1-B), (A) (C) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT 1959 AND SECTION
3(1)(i), 3(ii), 3(2), 3(3), AND 3(4) OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF
ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000 SO FAR AS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10 IS CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P.NO.100350/2017
SRI ANAND RAMESH NAIK,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HANEHALLI, POST: BANKIKODLU,
TAL: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 16 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.129 OF
2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA
SPL.JUDGE), BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120(B) OF IPC AND SECTION
3(2) AND 3(4) OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME
ACT, 2000 (CRIME NO. 245 OF 2013 REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 307,
353, 120(B), 212, 201, 419, 468, 471, 384, 388, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, SECTION 3, 8, 25 (1-B)(A)(B)(C)
OF ARMS ACT 1959 AND SECTION 3(1)(i) 3(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
OF KARNATAKA CONRTOL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000).
:3:
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
10.04.2017, THIS DAY, BUDHIAL R.B., J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by accused No.10 and accused No.16 respectively under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 353, 307 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No.245/2013. But charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 353, 120B, 212, 201, 419, 468, 371, 384, 388, 506 r/w Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3, 8, 25(1-B) (A) (C) of Indian Arms Act and also under Sections 3(1), 3(II), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 and now the matter is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court at Belagavi.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, complainant is working :4: since 13 years at Karwar District Police as Police Constable. The higher officials appointed the complainant as Gunman from September to Sri Ramachandra Narayan Naik (hereinafter referred as 'R.N.Naik' for brevity) aged about 58 years, who is a businessman who was residing in K.C.Road Palace, Ankola. The 'R.N.Naik' would leave the house and come back around 1.30 to have lunch and around 4-6 he would go out. During the said time complainant use to accompany as a Gunman and the Department had provided 9 mm pistol and 10 bullets. On 21.12.2013 as usual morning around 10.00 a.m. deceased 'R.N.Naik' came out of the house along with the complainant and CW74 in his Chevrolet Caption Car and they went to attend the program in Urdu School. When the function was over, the deceased left at about 11.30 a.m. to his bank namely Dwaraka Souharda Credit Co-op. Bank. CW74 the driver and the complainant went outside the bank. At about 1.30 after finishing his work deceased sat in his car to go to the home for lunch. During that time two buses came in opposite direction creating traffic jam. Due :5: to the same, the complainant was not able to sit in the car. Suddenly one person came back on the right side of the car and fired from his pistol on 'R.N.Naik.' At that time the complainant also fired from his pistol towards that person, but he escaped and ran towards the bus stand. At that time three persons were waiting near Parijata Hotel in Maruti Omni Car and they tried to pull that person into the Maruti Omni Car. Complainant fired again from his pistol and hearing the sound of firing all the three persons ran away from the spot. The complainant chased the person who fired 'R.N.Naik' at the entrance of Ankola Bus Stand and that man also fired back at the complainant. Complainant escaped that fire and fell down and for self- defence complainant also fired from his pistol. Due to the shot that man fell down. Complainant sent the man along with the police to the hospital and thereafter complainant came near 'R.N.Naik's car. During that time the car driver and public shifted the injured to Arya Medical Hospital. The complainant went and saw 'R.N.Naik' who sustained bleeding injury on the right side chest below the neck. :6: Doctor also confirmed that due to bullet shot the victim succumbed to death. Thereafter the complainant went and saw the spot the van still there in the bus stop. The Maruti Omni Car bearing No.CT-7767, the person who fired at 'R.N.Naik' had also succumbed to death in the hospital due to 9 mm shot. Complainant after verifying his driving licence came to know that the said persons name was Vivek Upadhyaiah son of Vijaya Kumar Prayak, r/at Kithapura, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Deceased Vivek Upadhyaiah and three persons had conspired and had murdered 'R.N.Naik' with the pistol and also obstructed to do the duty. Thereafter complainant filed the complaint against the deceased and three others. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered and during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has conducted spot mahazar and arrayed the petitioners as accused No.10 and 16 respectively along with other accused persons.
3. The petitioners/accused No.10 and 16 hereinabove have filed the above petitions seeking their :7: release on bail on the grounds as mentioned in the petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for petitioners/accused No.10 and 16, they have submitted that looking to the prosecution material collected during investigation there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioners. It is also their contention that there is no material placed to show that these two petitioners were involved in committing the similar offences during the previous period within 10 years from the date of the alleged incident. It is also their contention that except the voluntary statement said to have been recorded by the Investigation Officer, there is no other material to collect the above petitioners with the alleged offences. The materials also goes to show that even for the alleged offence of conspiracy also there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that since from the date of arrest the petitioners are in custody, the charge sheet witnesses are more in number to conclude the trial it may take more time, investigation :8: completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions both the above petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the Special Public Prosecutor opposing the petitions submitted that looking to the nature of the offences alleged that they are not only under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code but also under the provisions of Indian Arms Act and also under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000. He further made the submission that looking to the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation there is a prima facie material about the involvement of these two petitioners to show that they are the members of the organized crime indicate and accused No.9-Bannanje Raja is the head of the said organized crime syndicate. He also submitted that this Court while considering the bail application of accused No.11 has already discussed in detail about the prima facie case made out by the prosecution and rejected the said bail petition of accused No.11. It is also his submission that if the accused are :9: released on bail then it is difficult to secure their presence during the course of trial, they may threaten the witnesses and even they may involve in committing the similar offences. Hence, on these grounds he submitted to reject the bail application.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and also the entire charge sheet materials produced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners.
7. So far as accused No.10-Jagadish Chandra Raj Aras, the materials goes to show that he is an accused in Bengaluru Highground Police Station Crime No.52/2013 wherein accused No.9-Bannanje Raja is also co-accused in the said case and petitioner/accused No.10 committed the said offences as directed by accused No.9 in the said crime and the statements also goes to show that this accused No.10 is the member of organized crime syndicate of accused No.9. Materials goes to show that this accused No.10 contacted with accused No.9-Bannanje Raja through : 10 : his mobile No.9008518384 and 8050303136 to the International Subscriber Dialing (ISD) of accused No.9 bearing No.00971508415107 and he co-operated with accused No.9 in committing the offences. The statement of witnesses also goes to show that accused No.9 instructed petitioner/accused No.10 to get Hawala money from one Haji Ameen Pasha, who was staying at Dubai and give the said money to accused No.1, 3, 4 and 7 by having the criminal conspiracy for committing the murder of 'R.N.Naik.' Petitioner/accused No.10 contacted said Haji Ameen Pasha through his mobile and he also obtained the mobile number of accused No.11 and instructed accused No.11 to obtain the money from said Haji Ameen Pasha. Materials also goes to show that petitioner/accused No.10 contacted to the mobile phone of accused No.11 bearing No.7204128059 and received Rs.2,00,000/- and said money was deposited in the Punjab National Bank to the account of accused No.12, so also an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited to the S.B.I. account number of one Vijaya Kumar, the father of accused No.1. Materials : 11 : further goes to show that in the month of September/ October 2013, as per the instruction of accused No.9, the petitioner/accused No.10 received one parcel at Ashwath Nagar Bus Stop, which was at Sanjay Nagar Main Road and the said parcel was received from one Suleman and the said parcel was containing 2 pistols, 2 additional Maxines and bullets, same were handed over to accused No.3 in Suksagar Hotel at Malleshwaram. Materials further goes to show as per the instructions of accused No.9 in November 2013 the petitioner/accused No.10 contacted accused No.11 and nearby Gandhinagar Petrol Bunk at Bengaluru received Rs.1,50,000/- and out of the said amount, Rs.75,000/- was credited into the account of one Vijaya Kumar, the father of accused No.1 at Sultanpalya S.B.I. Branch and Rs.50,000/- in R.T.Nagar Branch. The materials also goes to show as instructed by accused No.9, the petitioner/accused No.10 received one pistol and bullets from accused No.12 at Mangalore-Yashwantpur Railway Station and kept the same in the house of CW102 at Ijipur and on 09.12.2013 again received from accused : 12 : No.12 at Yashwantpur Railway Station 3 pistol and the bullets and within few days and as directed by accused No.9, the petitioner/accused No.10 put 3 pistols and the bullets and also Rs.35,000/- in one cover and handed over the same to accused No.3 in Shantisagar Hotel at Malleshwaram. In January 2014 as instructed by accused No.9, the petitioner contacted accused No.11 and at S.N.Bazaar, which is nearby Gandhinagar Swapna Bookstall and received Rs.1,00,000/-. Again in December 2013 received Rs.1,00,000/- from accused No.11 and as instructed by accused No.9, petitioner/accused No.10 credited the said amount into the accounts of CW137 so as to give the same to accused Nos.3 and 4. The materials also goes to show that on 22.03.2014 petitioner/accused No.10 gave the voluntary statement before the Investigation Officer and at his instance as per the voluntary statement the Investigation Officer seized one 7.65 pistol, one maxine and 55 live bullets from the house of CW102. He has also given the voluntary statement on 29.03.2014 and at his instance the Investigation Officer : 13 : has seized two 7.65 pistols, 3 maxine, 5 live bullets from the house of CW103/Veerabhadraswamy. The investigation materials further goes to show that as per the instruction of accused No.9 the petitioner/accused No.10 was possessing the 3 pistols, 6 maxine, 58 live bullets illegally.
8. Sofar as petitioner/accused No.16 is concerned, I have perused the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Looking to the statement of CW.302, which was recorded on 15.04.2016, it goes to show that petitioner/accused No.16 was in constant touch with the main accused i.e., accused No.9-Bananje Raja and it also goes to show that accused stated that they will settle the deal with Mayur Naik. The statement of CW.313 goes to show that the voluntary statement of petitioner/accused No.16 was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of CWs. 303 and 308. The materials also go to show that on 21.11.2015, the Investigating Officer conducted personal search of petitioner/accused No.16 at the time of the arrest and seized one Samsung mobile : 14 : phone in the presence of the panch witnesses. The statement of petitioner/accused No.16 shows that he has given his voluntary statement on 21.12.2015 before the Superintendent of Police, Udupi, and it goes to show that petitioner/accused No.16 was member of the organized crime syndicate and he was giving information to accused No.9 about the movement of deceased 'R.N.Naik'.
9. I have also perused the document dated 20.08.2015 wherein the Court has given permission to the Investigating Officer to obtain the sample voice of accused No.9-Bananje Raja in order to examine the same with the voice, which the Investigating Officer had collected, in respect of the conversation of accused No.9-Bananje Raja with other accused persons. CWs. 264, 265, 266 and 267 also stated in their statements about recording of the statements of witnesses CWs.99, 105, 108, 306 and 319 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Looking to the voluntary statement of the present petitioner/accused No.16, if it is considered and appreciated along with other materials collected during the investigation by the Investigating : 15 : Officer, it prima facie goes to show that petitioner/accused No.16 was also having constant touch with the main accused i.e., accused No.9-Bananje Raja and he was giving details about the movement of the deceased 'R.N.Naik', and so also with regard to collection of hawala money and acting over the same by other accused persons. Looking to Section 19 of KOCA Act, the voluntary statement made by co-accused is binding on the other accused persons also.
10. I have perused the entire investigation materials. The prosecution has placed the prima facie material to show the involvement of petitioners/accused Nos.10 and 16 in committing the alleged offences being the members of the organized crime syndicate under the leadership of accused No.9-Bananje Raja. I have also perused the orders produced by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.10, as per the memo dated 10.04.2017. But, looking to the materials that I have discussed above and as there is a prima facie case as against both the petitioner/accused Nos.10 and 16 and as the alleged offences are very serious in nature having : 16 : serious impact on the society at large, I am of the opinion that these are not the fit cases wherein this Court can exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.10 and 16. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK/KMS