Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ijaz Ahmed S/O Bandenawaz Patel on 16 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201375/2021
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GOLGUMBAZ POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
REP BY THE ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
AND:
IJAZ AHMED,
S/O BANDENAWAZ PATEL,
AGE 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NANDRAL, TQ INDI,
DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ALLOW THE
PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05.07.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(KCOCA SPL. JUDGE) BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC.NO.473/2021
(CRIME NO.94/2019 OF GOLGUMBAZ POLICE STATION) AND
CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE
ACCUSED NO.4/RESONDENT HEREIN BY THE LEARNED
SESSIONS JUDGE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the case has been registered against the respondent making the allegation that the respondent had supplied the pistol having received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from accused Nos.1 to 3 and this respondent is arraigned as accused No.4. The Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.473/2021 enlarged the respondent on bail and hence the present petition is filed by the State contending that the Trial Court while exercising the discretion has not considered the grounds urged by the State and the offences invoked against the respondent and other accused persons under Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act ('KCOCA Act' for short) has been invoked subsequently after filing of the FIR.
3
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State would contend that the offences invoked against this respondent is serious in nature and there is a threat to the Society at large and there are 18 cases registered against the respondent.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court while exercising the discretion, in detail discussed in paragraph No.11 considering Section 2(1)(d) and (e) of the KCOCA Act with regard to the definition of terms 'continuing unlawful activity' and 'organized crime' and observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent used to supply firearms to accused Nos.1 to 3, who in turn was committing various offences as organized crime syndicate. Simply because accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of illegal arms alleged to have been supplied by the respondent herein, it is not possible to hold that the organized crime syndicate or continuing unlawful activity has been shown. It is also observed that nothing was recovered at the instance of the respondent, except the 4 co-accused statement and hence no grounds are made out to invoke Section 439(2) to Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent.
5. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt KCOCA Act was invoked against the respondent. On perusal of the FIR, at the first instance, case was registered in Crime No.94/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a), 29(a) and (b) of the Indian Arms Act. Later on, KCOCA Act was invoked. The Trial Court while exercising the discretion has taken note of the factual aspects of the case and in order to implicate this accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the statement of the co- accused i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3. The records reveal that accused Nos.1 to 3 have been enlarged on bail invoking Section 167 of Cr.P.C. The fact is that the charge sheet has not been filed within the time by the Investigation Officer. Hence, accused Nos.1 to 3 have availed the benefit of statutory bail. But, now an application is filed 5 for cancellation of bail against accused No.4 and the allegation made against him is that he had supplied the pistol, but no recovery is made at the instance of the respondent. The Trial Court while granting the bail made an observation that mere possession by accused Nos.1 to 3 is not a prima facie case to keep them under custody. When such observation is made and when no recovery is made at the instance of the respondent, it is not a fit case to cancel the bail granted by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent. The Trial Court has exercised the discretion while granting the bail. Hence, no grounds are made out to cancel the bail.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD