Karnataka High Court
Mr.Amit Mallikarjun Vannur 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. 100129/2021
BETWEEN:
AMIT MALLIKARJUN VANNUR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O. MR. MALLIKARJUN VANNUR
3RD CROSS, SHIVNAGAR,
GOKAK - 591 307
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL AND S.A. QAZI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GOKAK TOWN POLICE
REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DHARWAD BENCH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD - 580 001
2. MR. DEEPAK S. INGALGI
S/O. MR. SRIKANT INGALGI
ADI JAMBAVANAGAR
GOKAK - 591 307
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF KCOC ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE)
BELAGAVI IN SPL.C.NO.202/2020. AS PER ANNEXURE-A
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENALRGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.72/2020 OF GOKAK TOWN
POLICE NOW NUMBERED AS SPECIAL CASE NO.202/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
2
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120(B), 109, 201, 212 R/W 34, 35, 37 AND 149 OF IPC
ALONG WITH SECTIONS 3(3), 3(4) AND SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT, 2000.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2021, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by Accused No.16 under Section 12 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, 'KCOC ACT') for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Special Case No.202/2020, rejecting the bail petition filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case is that, the deceased Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi (for short, 'Siddappa') was the State President of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsha Samiti and earlier a case has been registered against the accused persons in connection with murder of one Rohit Patil. Keeping it in mind, on 06.05.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons being well-aware of the fact that the deceased Siddappa was belonging to Scheduled Caste, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, came in number of vehicles to Adi Jambav Nagar Cross at Gokak 3 Town, abused the deceased Siddappa referring with his caste and with an intention to cause his death, assaulted him with swords and machetes causing grievous injuries to him. When the complainant and three other witnesses tried to interfere, the accused have also given life threat to them and later on Siddappa admitted in the hospital, wherein his statement was recorded and he has disclosed the identity of the assailants. Later on, Siddappa succumbed to injuries on 07.05.2020 and the complainant filed a complaint. Later on, FIR came to be registered. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, it is revealed to the Investigating Officer that the accused are also involved in collecting Hafta from business persons in Gokak Town by extortion and they were members of the organized syndicate. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 504, 506 and 120(B) read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, 'SC & ST Act') and Section 25(1A) of Indian Arms Act, 1989 and Sections 3 & 4 of the 4 KCOC Act 2000, after obtaining necessary sanction. The present appellant is arraigned as Accused No.16.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (for short, 'SPP'). Perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime and there is no material evidence as against him. He would also contend that strict compliance of Section 24(1A) of KCOC Act is not followed and there is no authorization under Section 24(2) of the KCOC Act by the Government of Karnataka and admittedly, the appellant was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged offences. He would also invite attention of the Court to Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the KCOC Act and appellant was apprehended on 12.09.2020 and there is no other material as against him and hence, he would seek for enlarging the appellant on anticipatory bail by allowing the appeal.
5. On the contrary, the learned Special SPP has seriously objected the appeal contending that the present 5 appellant is a member of the organized Syndicate known as Tiger Gang and the deceased was also earlier belonging to the Tiger Gang and since differences arose in the Syndicate, he came out and formed his own Gang and he was the president of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsha Samiti.
6. It is the specific assertion of the prosecution that the present appellant is also a Member of the Organized Crime Syndicate-Tiger Gang, which is involved in collecting Hafta and extortion by creating fear in business community people in Gokak town. In this regard, he submitted that the statements of 66 prosecution witnesses clearly establish this aspect regarding organized syndicate and extortion by the present appellant/Accused No.16 and certain agreements of sale and sale deeds pertaining to Accused Nos. 1 and 14 were recovered from his custody and the confessional statement of Accused Nos. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17 and that of the present appellant also supports the case. He would also contend that the blank cheques were also recovered from his custody and 42 cases were registered against him and there is nexus between Accused Nos.1 & 2 and this appellant, and the confessional statement is admissible under Section 19 of 6 the KCOC Act. Hence, he would contend that there is material evidence and as such the appeal is devoid of any merits and sought for rejection.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and on perusing the records it is evident that, the prosecution has specifically alleged that the appellant is the Member of the organized syndicate known as Tiger Gang, which is involved in collection of Hafta in Gokak Town from business community people. The records further disclose that, when the search was conducted in the house of the accused, the agreements of sale and sale deeds in favour of Accused No.1, blank cheques etc., were traced. Further, the witnesses CW.1, 5, 6, 13 to 15, 46 to 54, 81, 113, 79, 80, 82 to 94, 101 to 105, 112, 114, 116 to 120, 124 to 127, 140, 144, 170, 172, 173, 143, 148, 159, 168, 169, 171, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 125 and CW.33 have given statement against the present appellant/Accused No.16 regarding he being the member of the organized syndicate indulged in collecting Hafta. Hence, there is prima facie case as against the present appellant. Further, recovery also 7 discloses that he was indulged in extortion. Apart from that, he is also the signatory to the sale deed of Accused No.2 and he had regularly conversed in call with Accused No.1 and
20. All these documents prima facie establish the involvement of the present appellant in this case.
8. During the course of argument, learned counsel has contended that there is no compliance under Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the KCOC Act reads as under:-
"Sec. 24. Cognizance of and investigation into an offence. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, -
(a) No information about the commission of an offence of organized crime under this Act shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police;
(b) No investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.8
(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of an Additional Director General of Police"
9. The learned counsel would contend that, there is no authorization by the Government regarding who has to give prior approval. As per the Statute, Police Officers not below the rank of DIG of Police can give authorization. He would contend that there are number of DIGs and hence, sanction itself is invalid. He would also contend that, cognizance cannot be taken when there is no clarity as to who has to give sanction. However, in this context, the learned SPP has invited the attention of the Court that the sanction has been accorded for investigation and subsequently, the crime under KCOC Act is revealed. He would also contend that for continuation of investigation, sanction is not required, and for prosecution and submission of the charge sheet, the sanction is accorded by the jurisdictional DIG. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there cannot be any presumption that only jurisdictional DIG shall grant sanction, as Act is silent. 9 However, as the charge sheet is submitted after obtaining the sanction, the validity of sanction cannot be gone into at this juncture in the this appeal, which is required for bail. Prima facie sanction is granted for prosecution and hence the said ground cannot be considered in this appeal.
10. Section 2(e) defines 'Organized Crime' and Section 2(f) defines 'Organised Crime Syndicate'. It is argued that, under Section 30 of the Act, power is vested with the state Government to frame the Rules and no Rules have been framed. But, it is to be noted here that Section 29 of the Act prescribes the powers and procedure for the High Court to make rules regarding Special Courts and under Section 30 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to frame Rules, if necessary and it is not mandatory. When the Act itself specifies, it is not mandatory to the State to frame rules in this regard.
11. The involvement of the accused in 42 cases is clarified in the charge sheet and nexus is also disclosed. The learned counsel for appellant in this context, placed reliance on the decision in Criminal Appeal No.100093/2021 (Jagadish Vs. The State of Karnataka and another) 10 clubbed with Criminal Appeal 100089/2021 (Anand Siddalingappa Gotadaki Vs. State of Karnataka and another) dated 02.07.2021, wherein Accused Nos. 11 and 14 were granted regular bail by this Court and ground of parity is put-forward. But, considering the overt-act alleged against the present appellant, the ground of parity cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In this context, the learned S.P.P. has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.4653/2016 c/w. 4587/2016 ( Safeer Ahmed and Abdul Rehaman Vs. State of Karnataka) dated 14.11.2016. The specific allegation against the present appellant is that, he is the Member of the organized crime syndicate known as Tiger Gang and charge sheet clarifies his overt-act regarding collecting Hafta and that allegation is supported by the material statement of the witnesses. Further, there is confessional statement given by co- accused, which is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOC Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision unreported of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No.1638/2019 (Digvijay Saroha Vs. State) dated 29.08.2019.
11
12. When the prosecution is prima facie able to establish that the accused is a Member of the organized syndicate, that itself is sufficient to draw the provisions of the KCOC Act. Hence, looking to the nature and gravity of the offences, this is not a fit case, wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the appellant by granting bail. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*