Karnataka High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2247/2018
BETWEEN:
Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil,
S/o Sri Krishna ,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.N-24,Fortune Ikon Apartment
Jodidar Ashwathappa Farm,
Sahakaranagar,
Bengaluru 560 092
(Presently in judicial custody)
...Petitioner
(By Sri Kiran S Javali, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Yelahanka Police Station
Bangalore 560 092
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court of Karnataka ,
Bengaluru-1.
...Respondent
(By Sri. K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C
praying toenlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime NO.58/2017
(Spl.C.C.No.414/2017) of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru
2
City, for the offence punishable under sections 399,402,120-
B,109 of IPC and Section 25,27,30 of ARMS Act.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement of the petitioner/accused No.12. The earlier petition filed by him came to be rejected by a considered order dated 12.12.2017 in Crl.P.No.6077/2017 c/w Crl. Petition No.5722/2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while dealing with the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. two important factors were not 3 considered by this Court: (i) The confession statement of the petitioner/accused No.12 was recorded 30 days after taking him into custody. Such a confession statement is held inadmissible in evidence by this Court in Crl.A.No.680/2017 dated 1.7.2017. (ii) The earlier petition was disposed of mainly on the ground that the charges under Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "KCOC Act, 2000) were invoked against the petitioner. But subsequent to the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Nayak Vs. State by Vitla Police Bantwal Taluk, (Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018 @ Special Leave Petition(CRL.)Nos.9140 of 2017) has declared Section 22(5) of the KCOC Act, 2000 as unconstitutional. On account of these subsequent events, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned HCGP, however, submits that this Court has considered all the contentions urged by the petitioner 4 and has passed a considered order on merits and no changed circumstances are available to the petitioner to sustain the second petition.
6. On perusal of the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, both contentions do not deserve acceptance. Firstly, the order in Crl.A.No.680/2017 was passed on 1.7.2017, much earlier to the order in Crl.A.No.6077/2017.Therefore, the contention based on the efficacy of confession statement is deemed to have been considered while rejecting the earlier bail application. Even otherwise, such legal contentions does not change the factual situation. The relevancy and admissibility of delayed recording of the confession statement may have to be considered only during the trial. The issue cannot be prejudged by this Court at this stage.
8. Insofar as argument based on Section 22(5) of the Act is concerned, no charge is laid against the petitioner under the provisions of the KCOC Act, 2000. After 5 investigation charge sheet is laid under Section 399,402, 120(B), 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25,27,30 of Arms Act, 1959. Therefore, even this contention does not survive for consideration. As a result, I do not find any changed circumstances to entertain the petition.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg/-