Karnataka High Court
Safeer Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka By on 14 November, 2016
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4653 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4587 OF 2016
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4653/2016
BETWEEN:
SAFEER AHMED
S/O. LATE ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 5/8, 1ST MAIN,
15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 091.
(PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
TILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION,
(NOW CCB (O.C.W.),
N.T. PATE, BANGALORE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.P.M.NAWAZ, SPP)
2
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.NO.459/2015
(S.C.C.NO.213/2016) OF THILAKNAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,153,153A,307,116 R/W 34 OF IPC.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4587/2016
BETWEEN:
ABDUL REHAMAN
S/O BASEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A #7, 'H' CROSS
8TH MAIN ROAD
NEW GURAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 029 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAM SINGH K, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
TILAKNAGARA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560041
(INVESTIGATED BY CCB POLICE)
REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.P.M.NAWAZ, SPP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.213/2016 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU,
(CR. NO.459/2015) OF TILAKNAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFFENCE P/U/S 120B,153,153-A,295-A,307,116 R/W 34 OF IPC
3
BESIDE SEC.3(1) OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED
CRIME ACT, 2000.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.11.2016 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are respectively Accused Nos.2 & 3 in Special C C No.213/2015 pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. These petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release on regular bail.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Accused No.1 had been in constant touch with Chota Shakeel, a notorious criminal, who instructed Accused No.1 to kill Hindu leaders in Bangalore. In furtherance thereof, Accused No.1 along with his associates, petitioners herein, were making preparation to the said task. The complainant made complaint on knowing the said information and Crime No.459/2015 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 153, 153-A, 4 295(A), 307, 116 r/w Section 34 IPC on 16.11.2015. The petitioners were arrested on 17.11.2015. During the course of investigation, seeing the gravity of allegations against Accused No.1, proposal was sent to invoke the provisions of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 against Accused Nos.1, 4 & 5. Even on 14.12.2015 when the petitioners were produced before the Principal Sessions Court, Bangalore, there was no reference in the remand application of invoking the provisions of KCOCA against the petitioners. The case was advanced from 21.1.23016 to 14.1.2016 on which date the order dated 13.1.2016 passed by the IGP and Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bangalore was produced granting permission to invoke the provisions of KCOCA. Now the police after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners and others under Sections 120-B, 153, 153(A), 295(A), 307, 419, 468, 471, 420, 118 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of KCOCA- 2000 and Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP for the State.
5
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no initial proposal as against the petitioners to invoke the provisions of KCOCA and even on the next two dates when the remand applications were made, there was no reference of invoking the provisions of KCOCA as against these petitioners. Only with an intention to rectify their mistake and to legalize the illegal detention, the provisions of the above Act are invoked. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners except the bare allegation that they are the henchmen and followers of Accused No.1. While invoking provisions of KCOC Act, 2000, proper procedure under Section 2(d) is not followed. The provision of the said Act is applicable to the person who committed offence against which more than one charge-sheet has been filed within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. In the instant case, only one case is pending as against the accused No.2 and therefore he ought not to have been invoked with provisions of the Act.
6
5. On the other hand, the learned SPP submits to dismiss the present petitions on the ground that the offences alleged are involvement of the petitioners in organized crimes. It is submitted, in order to invoke provisions of the Act, even if a person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards the commission of an organized crime, if a nexus either with an accused who is a member of an "organized crime syndicate" or with the offence in the nature of an "organized crime" is established, that would attract the invocation of provisions of the Act. It is enough that in all three incidents there was violence amounting to an effort to promote insurgency, that is, to damage the peace and tranquility in the State. The non- inclusion of petitioners' name in the approval was not fatal to the investigation. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioners have a direct bearing and/or link with the activities of the other accused as part of the gang/syndicate. The learned SPP has placed reliance on decision in Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs., State of Maharashtra & another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 440 and Vinod G Ansrani vs., State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 633 in this regard.
7
6. While considering the petitions seeking for bail, what is to be considered is the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the punishment prescribed for the said offences and the impact on the society. The investigation is stated to have revealed that the accused persons had formed a Syndicate and they were involved in several crimes having formed an organized crime syndicate. They were conspiring and preparing to commit heinous offences so as to create communal tensions and law and order disturbances, by promoting enmity between different groups and religions, by giving provocation with an intention to cause riot and by doing deliberate and malicious acts intending to outrage the religious feelings. The accused were conspiring and making preparations to commit the murder of prominent Hindu leaders. Section 2(d) of KCOC Act, 2000 provides "committing unlawful activities" prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such Syndicate in respect of which more than 1 charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that in order to 8 invoke the provisions of the Act, two charge sheets are to be filed and cognizance has to be taken by the Magistrate against the individual accused cannot be accepted. The Crimes undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed, indicates that even if charge sheets are filed in such number of crimes on behalf of the syndicate also is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act.
7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that safety of the society is paramount consideration than the individuals' liberty. Hence I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd