Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagan @ Jagannath vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.P.No.4278/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGAN @ JAGANNATH,
S/O SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
NOW R/AT TEACHERS COLONY,
MULABAGALU TOWN,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
KOTHAMANGALA VILLAGE,
MULABAGALA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 562 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.RAGHUNATHA GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MULABAGILU TOWN POLICE,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-2 ALONG WITH
SMT. SOWMYA.R., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN SPL.C.C.NO.2857/2022 (CR.NO.80/2022) OF MULBAGAL
TOWN POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
120B, 302, 201 READ WITH 149 IPC AND SECTION 3(2), 3(4)
OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accused no.1 in Spl.C.C.No.2857/2022 pending before the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.80/2022 registered by Mulabagal Town Police Station, Kolar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 116, 118, 212, 120B, 302, 201 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act'), is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.PC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. On the complaint of Smt. Nirupama W/o Jagan Mohan Reddy dated 07.06.2022, FIR was initially registered by Mulabagal Town police in Crime No.80/2022 against the petitioner (accused no.1) and his brother Dhanush (accused no.2) initially for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 149 IPC. 3
4. In the complaint, it is averred that on 07.06.2022 at about 5.15 a.m., complainant's husband had gone to open the door of Gangamma Temple adjacent to their house and after some time, complainant heard somebody shouting, and therefore, immediately she went towards that side and noticed that four to five persons who were holding weapon in their hand went away from the spot in two-wheelers. When the complainant went near the spot, she found that her husband was lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his body. Since complainant's husband was still breathing, with the help of her neighbourers, complainant took her husband in the auto rickshaw of Mani @ Gundu to the Government Hospital at Mulabagal. The doctors in the hospital informed the complainant that her husband had died. Thereafter, she came back home and on verification from the CCTV footage, she found that four to five persons and others had come to the spot in two-wheelers. The complainant suspected the hand of the children of Savithramma viz., Jagan @ Jagannath (accused no.1) and Dhanush (accused no.2) since the two families had ill-will against each other. It is in this background, she had lodged a 4 complaint on 07.06.2022 which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.80/2022 against the petitioner and his brother.
5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2022. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed totally against 16 accused persons. Petitioner has been arrayed as accused no.1 in the charge sheet. The Investigation Officer prior to submitting the charge sheet had obtained necessary permission for invoking the provisions of the Act, and thereafter filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Petitioner's bail application filed before the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.2857/2022 was dismissed on 16.05.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with the other accused to commit the murder of deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy. He submits that accused nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 12 to 16 who are similarly placed have been enlarged on bail. He submits that the provisions of the Act has been wrongly invoked in the 5 present case due to political reasons. He submits that even according to the charge sheet allegations, accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11 are the persons who had actually assaulted Jagan Mohan Reddy and had committed the crime. The said accused are in custody. All other accused persons except accused no.1 who had not actually participated in committing the crime have been granted bail. There is no recovery from the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned SPP has seriously opposed the petition by filing statement of objections on behalf of the respondent. He submits that in the year 2017 itself, the accused had conspired with others to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy and Crime No.157/2017 was registered against the petitioner by Mulabagal police for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. He submits that accused no.1 was found along with accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11 in a bar on the night of 06.06.2022 and the same is captured in the CCTV footage of the bar. He submits that the petitioner has got antecedents and he is a member of organized crime syndicate involved in 6 committing organized crimes, and therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
8. Complainant had approached the police on 07.06.2022 immediately after her husband was assaulted by four to five persons who had allegedly come to the spot in two-wheelers. Subsequently, the complainant had also verified the CCTV footage near her house and found the aforesaid four to five persons who had come to the spot were armed with deadly weapons. The said CCTV footage has been seized and the persons found in the CCTV footage are allegedly identified as accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11. The said accused are in custody. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not found in the CCTV footage.
9. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has actually participated in committing the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy on the early hours of 07.06.2022. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with other accused persons to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy and the motive alleged is that the mother of accused nos.1 & 2 - 7 Savithramma who was earlier close to Kothanur Manjunath - a local political leader, was subsequently distanced by him after Jagan Mohan Reddy became close to Kothanur Manjunath. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the year 2017 itself, the petitioner had conspired with the other accused persons to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy, and therefore, FIR in Crime No.157/2017 was registered by Mulabagal police against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 120B IPC. The said case is undisputedly now pending in C.C.No.155/2020. Petitioner is on bail in the said case.
10. The contention of the prosecution that in furtherance of the conspiracy that had taken place in the year 2017, the accused persons have committed the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy becomes difficult to be believed having regard to the confession statement of the accused who have actually committed the crime of murder by assaulting Jagan Mohan Reddy with deadly weapons. In their confession statement, the said accused persons have stated that prior to they committing the 8 murder, they had met the petitioner on 13.05.2022 and when they had sought his help, he had remained silent and on enquiry had informed them that he is married and has got a wife and child.
11. After the accused persons who had actually committed the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy by assaulting him with deadly weapons, were arrested, identification parade was held in accordance with law by the jurisdictional Tahsildar at Chintamani Sub-Jail and the accused persons who had arrived at the spot on the early hours of 07.06.2022 have been identified and all the said accused persons are in custody. Except the petitioner herein, all the other accused persons who had not actually participated in the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy by assaulting him on 07.06.2022, have been enlarged on bail.
12. Learned SPP has seriously opposed the petition by contending that the offence under Section 3 of the Act has been invoked as against the petitioner, and therefore, he cannot be granted bail. The material on record would go to show that the said offence has been 9 invoked even as against the persons who have been granted regular bail by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in the present case.
13. The Act has been enacted for prevention and control of and for coping with criminal activity by organized crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'Organized crime syndicate', which reads as under:
"(f) "Organized crime syndicate", means a group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organized crime."
14. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the term 'organized crime', which reads as under:
"(e) "Organized crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue 10 economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency."
15. Section 2(d) of the Act which defines the term 'Continuing unlawful activity', reads as under:
"(d) "Continuing unlawful activity"
means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.
16. From the material on record, it becomes highly doubtful that the petitioner can be considered as a member of the organized crime syndicate indulge in activities of organized crime.
17. The courts should not get swayed away by the offences invoked against the accused either in the FIR or in the charge sheet while considering an application for bail. It is the duty of the courts to find out whether there 11 are necessary material and ingredients either in the complaint or in the charge sheet depending upon the stage of the case which would prima facie justify invoking such provisions of law against the accused. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is involved in four criminal cases.
• Crime No.118/2017 was registered by Mulbagal Town Police against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 IPC. The said case was subsequently numbered as C.C.No.195/2018 and the accused therein including the petitioner have been acquitted by the Trial Court.
• Crime No.157/2017 was registered by Mulbagal Town Police against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. The allegation in the said case is that the petitioner and other accused persons had conspired to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy. The said case is now pending trial before the jurisdictional Magistrate in C.C.No.155/2020. • Crime No.123/2018 is registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 346, 12 364A, 368, 392, 504, 506B, 120B, 201, 212, 34 IPC. The only allegation against the petitioner in the said case is that he had harboured the other accused persons who had actually participated in committing the crime.
• The only other case that is registered against the petitioner is Crime No.145/2022 by Mulbagal Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 114, 34 IPC. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.4 in the said case. The said case was registered after the petitioner was arrested in the present case based on his confession statement. Deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy is accused no.1 in Crime No.145/2022 and one Suresh @ Suri and Gangadhar @ Appayya are accused nos.2 & 3 in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that accused nos.2 & 3 had murdered Painter Ramesh at the instance of deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy and after committing the murder of Painter Ramesh, accused nos.2 & 3 had confessed the same to the petitioner herein. Petitioner allegedly was in the vehicle in which accused nos.2 & 3 had taken Painter Ramesh along with them. As per the confession statement of the petitioner, he was sleeping in the vehicle and he came to know that accused nos.2 & 3 had committed the murder of Painter Ramesh only after they subsequently informed him. Therefore, prima 13 facie it would go to show that the petitioner had not played any active part even in committing the murder of Painter Ramesh.
18. In the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with the other accused persons who committed the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy. According to the prosecution, accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11 are the assailants who had allegedly committed the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy on the early hours of 07.06.2022 and their presence in the spot is reflected in the CCTV footage. The other accused persons who allegedly had conspired and had helped the assailants to commit the murder and also to escape from the spot have been granted bail. Accused nos.4, 7, 8 & 9 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court and accused nos.12 to 16 have been granted bail by this Court.
19. According to the confession statement of the assailants i.e., accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11, when they had met the petitioner herein a few days prior to the date of murder and had informed about their intention to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy, the petitioner 14 allegedly remained silent and on enquiry, he informed that he has got a wife and child, and therefore, he is helpless. Merely for the reason that the petitioner was found in a bar on 06.06.2022 along with the assailants i.e., accused nos.2, 5, 6, 10 & 11, it cannot be said that he had conspired with them for committing the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy or that the assailants had revealed to him about their intention or plans to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy. Accused no.2 is the younger brother of the petitioner and if the petitioner had joined his brother and others in a bar a day prior to the date of incident, that itself is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that he was part of the conspiracy to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy. Petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2022. He is a married man with a child. Merely for reason that the petitioner is involved in some other criminal cases, cannot itself be a ground for rejecting the bail application.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRABHAKAR TEWARI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER - AIR Online 2020 SC 96, has held that though 15 the offence alleged is grave and serious and several criminal cases are pending against the accused, the said factors by themselves cannot be basis for refusal for bail. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:
21. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.2857/2022 pending before the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.80/2022 registered by Mulabagal Town Police Station, Kolar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 116, 118, 212, 120B, 302, 201 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;16
b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;
c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;
e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK