Karnataka High Court
Saleem P A vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2628/2014
A/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2996/2014
BETWEEN:
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2628/2014:
1.SALEEM P A
S/O LATE REHAMANp
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT KUSHALANAGAR MAIN ROAD
SOMWARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
PIN-571236.
2.SHARIFF P S @ SHARIFF P U
S/O USMAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/A NO.39, SUNTIKOPPA
SOMAWARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
PIN-571236. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MAHADEVA R K., ADV.)
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2996/2014:
B PRAKASH
S/O BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2
R/AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE,
K.R.NAGAR TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/AT BAICHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN
SOMAVARPUET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADV. FOR
VIJETHA R.NAIK, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH YELAWALA POLICE STATION),
(PRESENTLY IT IS UNDER
INVESTIGATION BY CID, MYOSRE)
REPTD. BY HIGH COURT
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BLDG,
BAANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
(BY SRI.K.R.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP)
THESE CRL.PS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.72/14 OF YELAWALA P.S., MYSORE (NOW
PRESENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION BY CID,
MYSORE) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 144, 392,
120B OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them with a common order.
2. Crl.P.No.2628/2014 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 in the charge sheet, (but mentioned as accused Nos.6 and 7 in the petition) and Crl.P.No.2996/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 as per the charge sheet, (but mentioned as accused No.10 in the petition), both these petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 392, 120B of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.72/2014 and charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 120B, 411 of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused persons in 4 respect of both petitions and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State in respect of both petitions.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averment in the complaint that on 08.03.2014 at about 12.45 p.m PSI of Yelawala Police Station on the direction of Superintendent of Police, Mysore received complaint of one Sri Sainulabdheen, a resident of Kudukkil House in Calicut district of Kerala State. In the complaint, it is alleged that he is in the hotel, Super market and other business at Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Kerala. Complainant purchased duty paid gold at Kerala and to sell the same at Bangalore, he used to carry sale proceeds only in passengers transport bus for safety. On 01.01.2014 the complainant had purchased duty paid gold from one Venkatesh for Rs.60 Lakhs. Apart from this, one Sainjudheen was possessing cash of Rs.1.17 Crore, Salikoyathangal was possessing Rs.30 Lakhs and Abdul Raheem was possessing Rs.20 Lakhs and totally it was Rs.2.27 Crores. They all decided to transfer money from Bangalore to Calicut through 5 Kalpaka Travels Bus bearing registration No.KA-01/AA- 2793. Accused Razaak was the mediator for this transfer of money. The money was kept in a small box on the left side of the bus, earmarked specially for this box. Sainudheen's agent Mohinuddin was travelling in the bus to ensure security. On 04.01.2014 around 01.30 a.m, when the bus reached Yelwala Village, some of the Police Officers intercepted and directed the driver and cleaner to take their bus to Yelawala Police Station. Accordingly, bus was taken to Yelawala Police Station, where the police instructed all the passengers to alight from the bus so as to facilitate them to check the bus, and took the driver and cleaner into their jeep. They have searched the bus, during the search Police Officers spotted the money boxes kept on the left side of the bus. Mohinuddin, as he was near to the wall managed to see from inside the police station as to opening of the box, counting of currency notes. After sometime, the driver and cleaner of the bus were arrested on the allegation that, they traced cash of Rs.20 Lakhs being carried in 6 the said bus. The police have deliberately not shown the remaining amount of Rs.2.07 Crore, which was actually seized from the bus. It is further alleged that, Police Officers hatched a conspiracy to knock off money of the complainant and others, which was kept in a highly confidential place and could not be traced out by any persons other than the persons, who had the knowledge and registered a false case against the driver and cleaner. The Police Officers misappropriated a sum of Rs.2.07 Crores by showing paltry sum of Rs.20 Lakhs as the recovered amount.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 during the course of his arguments submitted that, in the complaint, the names of the present petitioners are not mentioned, so also in the FIR their names are not shown. He also made the submission that, it is only at the subsequent stage; the Investigating Officer arrayed the present petitioners as accused Nos.8 and 9 without any basis. Learned counsel made the submission that even considering the 7 materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, there is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9. Learned counsel made the submission that, it is the case of the prosecution that some amount is seized from accused Nos.8 and 9. He made the submission that, only on the basis of the alleged seizure of amount from accused Nos.8 and 9, it cannot be said that they have involved in the commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel made the submission that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case and they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that by imposing any reasonable conditions, they may be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 during the course of his arguments submitted that, firstly, he will adopt the arguments advanced on behalf of accused Nos.8 and 9 and in addition to that he made the submission that, so far as the 8 petitioner/accused No.5 is concerned, absolutely there is no iota of material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. He made the submission that, without there being any basis, though there is no prima-facie material, he has been arrested by the police and illegally detained in custody. Hence, learned counsel submitted that by imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No.5 may be enlarged on bail.
7. As against this, the learned HCGP, during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the allegations made in the complaint and also the materials collected during investigation, they go to show that, it is a planned robbery committed and he also made the submission that it is most unfortunate to submit that the Police Officers and Officials are involved in the crime. He made the submission that, police personnel, who are meant for safety and security of the people and to maintain law and order situation, themselves have involved in the commission of alleged 9 offence. Hence, in this view of the matter, it is to be viewed seriously. He made the submission that the materials collected during investigation makes out prima-facie case against all the three petitioners herein, so also with other accused persons and the offences alleged under Section 395 of IPC that too by the Police personnel is a serious offence and some of the accused persons are still absconding, Investigating Officer has to trace them and to take them into custody for interrogation and he also made the submission that though the charge sheet is filed, but still the investigation is on and police have to take steps regarding other accused persons and after completing the same they have to file the supplementary charge sheet. Hence, he submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
8. I have perused the averments made in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint, charge sheet material, materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The materials go to show that, on 10 04.01.2014 totally four persons transported their money including the complainant, total amount of Rs.2.27 Crores. Perusing the statement of the complainant, one of the staff member of the complainant by name Mohinuddin was also travelling in the said bus to ensure security with regard to the money. The amount was transferred in the Kalpaka Travels Bus bearing registration No.KA-01/AA-2793. It is also contended that every time complainant was transporting the money through the bus only for the purpose of safety and as there was no safety to send through the private vehicles.
9. I have perused the statement of driver and cleaner of the bus, looking to the statement of these witnesses, so also the statement of Mohinuddin one of the staff member of the complainant, who also travelled in the bus. They clearly go to show that, the total amount of Rs.2.27 Crores was in six bundles, three bundles were kept in the back side dikki of the said bus. The materials also go to show that, when the bus 11 was on the way and in the middle the driver received the phone message through somebody, informing him that he had to keep the money properly, as the Police Officers were going to check the bus. The materials go to show that after receiving the said message, driver of the bus, stopped the bus on the way and with the help of the cleaner, he opened the back side dikki of the bus and took those three bundles and kept them also in the safety box, so all six bundles were in the safety box. Materials also go to show that, when the bus reached Yelawala and nearby the Yelawala Police had put the barricade on the road, so the driver stopped the bus. Then, the Police Officers and Officials boarded the bus, then, took the driver and cleaner and asked all the passengers to alight from the bus to conduct search in the bus and the driver and cleaner were made to sit in one police jeep and the passengers were taken inside the Police Station. The statement of Mohinuddin, who travelled in the said bus, also goes to show that he was standing nearby the wall, wherein he could see the bus 12 and at that time the police went inside the bus and took all the six bundles of notes and put one bundle in the tool box of the bus and took remaining five bundles from the bus to their custody and subsequently, the driver and cleaner were again brought back into the bus and in their presence, they took one bundle of notes to show that, as if, one bundle has been seized from the bus and taking it into the Police Station the amount was counted and it was amounted to Rs.20 Lakhs only. The four persons, who have transported their amount in the said bus, entrusting it into the custody of the driver of the bus, they have clearly stated in their statement, not only before the Investigating Officer but they have given the statement even before the Magistrate Court, which was recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. So, their statement coupled with the statement of driver of the bus, prima-facie establishes that the amount of Rs.2.27 Crores was transported in the said bus during that night.
13
10. The materials collected during investigation also go to show that the said bus was stopped nearby Yelawala Police Station and the Police Officers get into the bus and took the driver and cleaner, so also asked the passengers to alight from the bus. There is also material to show from the statement of Mohinuddin, who said to have travelled in the said bus that, he had seen the Police Officers taking out five bundles from the safety box and kept only one bundle in the tool box. The materials also go to show that accused No.10, one Mushtaq, who was also travelled in the said bus just like a passenger and he was giving information through his phone to the concerned Police Officers about the route and location of the bus. During investigation, when the present petitioners were arrested, the Investigating Officer seized their mobile phones and obtained the call details and I have perused the call details produced in the case, they clearly go to show that these petitioners, who have filed the petitions seeking their bail, had the phone calls with accused 14 No.5/Prakash and he inturn also had the telephonic conversations with other accused persons. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the voluntary statements of the petitioners, on the basis of the voluntary statements, Investigating Officer has seized Rs.3,10,000/- from accused No.8/Saleem, Rs.5 Lakhs from accused No.9/Sharif and Rs.45,000/- from accused No.5/Prakash. I have also perused the statement of passengers, who travelled in the said bus, they have also stated in consonance with the statement made by Mohinuddin and the driver of the bus, that the bus was stopped by the Police Officers and at Yelawala Police Station and Police get into the bus. Therefore, considering all these materials on record, the prosecution placed the prima-facie material to show that there was a conspiracy between all the accused persons to commit the alleged offence. The materials go to show that, it is a well planned and well organized offence executed in this case and as, it is submitted by the learned HCGP that the accused persons in this case 15 are none other than the very Police Officers and Officials. Therefore, in view of this prima-facie material and the seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioners.
Accordingly, both the petitions are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE BSR