Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5853/2017
Between:
1. Sri V Nagaraj
S/o Sri Varadappa
Aged about 53 years
R/a No.U7, II Main Road
II Cross, Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bangalore-560 021.
2. Sri Gandhi N
S/o Sri V Nagaraj
Aged about 24 years
R/a No.U7, II Main Road
II Cross, Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bangalore-560 021.
3. Sri Shastri N
S/o Sri V Nagaraj
Aged about 22 years
R/a No.U7, II Main Road
II Cross, Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bangalore-560 021. ..Petitioners
(by Sri N Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)
2
And:
State of Karnataka
By Srirampura Police Station
Bengaluru - 560 021
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.91 of 2017 of Srirampuram Police Station, Bangalore
for the offences p/u/s 395 of IPC and under Section 25
of the Arms Act.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners (father and two sons) are in judicial custody in Crime No.91/2017 registered by the respondent-police. During the pendency of the petition, charge sheet is submitted to the Court by the Investigating Officer in respect of the offences 3 punishable under Sections 364(A), 395, 397, 342, 506, 120(B) of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 5, 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 against 18 accused and the petitioners herein are arraigned as accused 1 to 3.
3. The gist of the allegation is, accused illegally confined CWs.1, 4 and 5 extorted a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs. Five crores) by putting them under threat on 18.3.2017. The Investigating Officer conducted raid in the building of 1st accused and recovered heap of demonetized currency notes, lethal weapons and dummy notes. The complainant who had no courage to lodge complaint, after watching the TV coverage of the raid mustered courage and filed complaint naming these petitioners and 3 others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is a social worker. He has been contesting for assembly elections since the year 1999. Prior to that, he was a Corporator and his wife was also 4 a Corporator. Due to political vengeance, the 1st petitioner is implicated in the case. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused extorted an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from him and his friends. FIR was registered after one month and the reasons assigned for the delay in filing FIR that the petitioners threatened the life of CWs.1, 4 and 5 if they lodged a complaint is only a make believe story. The 1st petitioner is actively participating in social activity in his area and is anticipating for the election of 2018. He is implicated in the case by his political rivals in connivance with the police officials.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the offence under Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 is not punishable with imprisonment. Even if the offence under the said Act is proved against petitioners, said offence is liable for fine of Rs.10,000/- or fine 10 times the value of bank currency notes. In respect of the offence under 5 the Arms Act, only one dummy pistol is found and the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Learned counsel further submits that he will not dispute the criminal cases listed in the objection statement by the learned HCGP. The Criminal Case No.173/2010 was registered during Corporation election in the year 2010. The Criminal Case No.161/2015 registered by the Srirampura Police also pertains to malpractice during the election period. Petitioners are not at all implicated in any offences punishable with major punishment. The raid was conducted before criminal case was registered, it is not a evidence in the eye of law. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are students. The investigation since complete, they may be enlarged on bail and they undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on them by this Court. 6
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that the petitioners are Rowdy sheeters. Though the earlier Rowdy sheet opened against 1st petitioner is quashed, presently A.C.P. has ordered to open rowdy sheet against them. Along with his objection statement, learned HCGP lists 12 pending cases against 1st petitioner, 10 cases against 2nd petitioner and 11 cases against 3rd petitioner, which are under investigation/pending trial. It is the submission of learned HCGP that keeping in interest the nature of accusation and also of fair trial, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. He places reliance of the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1272/2015 (SLP (Crl) No.1596/2015) DD 29.9.2015 wherein the accused was a history sheeter and was enlarged on bail by the High Court on the ground of parity. Following was the observation at Paras-15 and 16:
"15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has 7 totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history - sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert which admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
16. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce a few significant lines from BEnajamin Disraeli:-
I repeat that all power is a trust-that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and all must exist."
7. With the above submissions, what comes to the forefront for consideration is out of list of cases shown to the credits of these petitioners cases pertain to complaints registered subsequent to the raid conducted on 22.4.2017. With the remaining 5 or 6 criminal cases in the list are said to be the allegations pertaining to 8 Election period and private property dispute. None of the offences alleged in these lists attract major punishment.
8. As per the allegations made in the complaint, he mustered courage after witnessing in the TV, the raid conducted by the police on the house of petitioners. That being so, complaint was subsequent to raid and prosecution is yet to demonstrate how recoveries made during raid can be linked to this case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that even if a single complaint is made against them from now onwards, the Court may cancel the bail. In view of the above circumstances, there is no impediment to allow the petition subject to conditions.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.91/2017 registered by the respondent-Police, subject to the following conditions:
9
(i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakhs only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; The sureties shall furnish their original documents pertaining to immovable properties and their identity card/Aadhar card for perusal of the Court. They must not have previous history of offering surety in other similar cases.
(ii) They shall not threaten the complainant and his family members and other prosecution witnesses;
(iii) They shall mark their attendance before the SHO of the respondent - Police Station on every Thursday during the office hours till conclusion of trial; 10 In the event of deviation from any of the above conditions, the Investigation Officer is entitled for seeking cancellation of bail before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm