Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

R D Patil @ Rudragouda vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2024

Author: K Natarajan

Bench: K Natarajan

                                               -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                                       CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

                              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200969 OF 2024
                                     (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      R. D. PATIL @ RUDRAGOUDA S/O DEVENDRAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                      RESIDENCE AT SONNA VILLAGE,
                      AFZALPUR TALUKA,
                      KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585103.
                      AND NOW AT PLOT NO.42, AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY,
                      NEAR HIGH COURT RING ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                      (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
                                                             ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. SANDESH CHOWTA, SR. COUNSEL APPEARING
                      FOR SRI. PATIL SHIVAKUMAR DEVENDRAPPA,
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA             SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATES)
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
Location: High        AND:
Court Of
Karnataka
                      STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      BY ASHOK NAGAR P.S.,
                      REPRESENTED BY
                      ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      KALABURAGI-585105.


                                                               ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI. P. N. JAGADEESHA., ADDL. SPP A/W
                       SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                   CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483


OF   THE   BHARATIYA   NAGARIK     SURAKSHA   SANHITA-2023


PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO.3 ON


REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.160/2023 REGISTERED BY ASHOK


NAGAR P.S KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE


UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109, 114, 36, 37


AND 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1) (ii) (2) (3) (4) OF


KARNATAKA    CONTROL    OF   ORGANIZED    CRIME   ACT-2000,


WHICH NOW PENDING IN SPECIAL CASE (KCOCA) NO.1/2024


ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE


AT KALABURAGI.



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR


ORDERS ON 21.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT


THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING..
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                   CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN


                        CAV ORDER

           (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)


     This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.3

under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') for granting regular bail in

Crime No.160/2023, registered by the Ashok Nagar Police

Station, Kalabuargi and charge-sheeted for the offences

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 109,

114, 36, 37 and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1) (i) (2)

(3) (4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act,

2000 (KCOCA Act), which is now pending in Special Case

(KCOCA) No.1/2024 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, at Kalaburagi.


     02.    Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel

Sri. Sandesh Chowta     appeared   for   the   petitioner and

Sri. P. N. Jagadeesha, the learned Additional SPP for the

respondent - State.
                              -4-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                     CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     03.   The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of one Smt. Shilpa, the Assistant Lecturer at

Sharanabasav University, at Kalaburagi, the police have

registered the FIR alleging that when she was room

supervisor in the competent examination held in their

institution on 28.10.2023 for the recruitment of FDA posts.

There were 21 candidates in Room No.38. At about 11.30

a.m. the Deputy Director of Karnataka Education Authority

(for short 'KEA') came to the room along with the police,

wherein the accused No.1 is said to be writing the

examination by using the Bluetooth device, by receiving

the answers from outside from his brother - Ambrish

(accused No.2). On caught red-handed, he has revealed

the name of this petitioner who was helped the accused

No.1 for providing Bluetooth giving answer getting from

other persons and through brother of the accused No.1

who is sitting out of the campus in a car and giving

answers    helping   the   accused    No.1     for   writing   the

examination. After arresting the accused No.1 and others

while examination of recruitment of FDA posts, it was
                                -5-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                     CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




reveled that this petitioner / accused No.3 was received

money from the accused persons for helping them for

examination by proving Bluetooth device as well as correct

answers by collusion with the various accused persons.

During the investigation the police have arrested this

petitioner on 10.11.2023 at Solapur. He was remanded to

the judicial custody. The police have investigated the case

and filed the charge-sheet. The previous bail application of

this petitioner came to be rejected by this Court on

28.05.2024 in Criminal Petition No.200159/2024. Once

again this petitioner is before this Court for granting the

bail.


        04.   The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

has urged the following various grounds as under :-


   I. That the police have already investigated the matter

        and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. He

        is no more required for any investigation.
                              -6-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                   CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




II. It is contended that the alleged offences at the time

    of registering the FIR were punishable with up to 07

    years. There     is non-compliance      of      provision   of

    Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C. Notice was not issued to the

    petitioner prior to arrest. As per the Judgment of the

    Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender

    Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

    and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, if the

    notice is not issued to the petitioner and non-

    compliance of the provision of Section 41 (A) of

    Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled for bail.


III. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

    also contended that at the time of arrest of the

    petitioner the grounds for arrest was not made

    known to the petitioner, as per Section 50 of Cr.P.C.

    (Section 47 of BNSS). Therefore, on all these

    grounds the petitioner is entitled for bail.
                            -7-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                  CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




IV. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also

    contended that there were 137 witnesses cited in the

    charge-sheet. There is no possibility of early trial in

    this case and trial may be delayed. There is no

    chance of starting the early trial. Therefore, the

    petitioner may be granted bail.


 V. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also

    contended that now the stage of the case before the

    Trial Court is hear before Charge. The matter will be

    taken up by delayed manner and framing of charge

    also may be delayed.


VI. The petitioner is in custody for almost 09 months and

    he cannot be kept in Jail as a pre-trial punishment.


VII. The co-accused persons were already granted bail by

    the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, he is

    entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
                             -8-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                    CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




VIII. The police have inserted the KCOCA Act, which is

     questionable. This Court previously rejected the bail

     application of this petitioner mainly on the ground

     that the Section 22 (5) of the KCOCA regarding Bar

     for granting the bail. In fact the said provision has

     been declared as ultra vier, as per the judgment of

     the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, he is entitled

     for bail.



     05.   The learned Senior Counsel also contended that

in over all Karnataka there were 6,17,930 candidates have

appeared    for   examination     for   670   posts   for   04

departments. Only 08 cases were noted at Kalaburagi in

respect of the malpractice. It will not effect the entire

examination system. They are attempted to commit the

malpractice and he is in custody. The police have arrested

this petitioner by violating the fundamental right of the

petitioner. Hence, prayed for granting the bail. He has

relied upon various judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in support of his arguments.
                               -9-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                    CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     06.   The learned Addl. SPP. has objected the bail

petition contending that:-

  I. That the grounds urged by the learned Senior

     Counsel for the petitioner regarding Section 41 (A) of

     Cr.P.C., the police have complied the provisions by

     issuing notice to the petitioner. He was not available

     for service. Hence, the notice was affixed on the door

     belongs to the petitioner house on 03.11.2023 itself.

     He was absconding. Therefore, on this ground the

     petitioner is not entitled for bail.



 II. The learned Addl. SPP also contended that the

     petitioner was arrested by the police only after

     obtaining the NBW from the jurisdictional Court as he

     was absconding. The police have got information that

     he is out of the State. Therefore, by filing of

     application before the learned Magistrate obtained

     the NBW. Thereafter, the police have went to

     Solapur, arrested the petitioner and brought to

     Kalaburagi.
                            - 10 -
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                    CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




III. It is also contended by the learned Addl. SPP. that

    the police have given intimation regarding grounds of

    arrest, on the NBW issued by the Court. Therefore,

    the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel for

    the petitioner for granting the bail, does not arises.

    There is no violation of any guidelines issued by the

    Hon'ble Supreme Court or Cr.P.C.


IV. The learned Addl. SPP also contended that the

    accused have criminal antecedents. There were 08

    cases registered against him in Kalaburagi District for

    the PSI Scam and also 08 cases registered in entire

    Kalaburagi District, as well as Yadgiri District, during

    the FDA recruitment examination. He is having past

    history of committing the similar offences. He is a

    habitual offender.


 V. The petitioner has been granted bail in PSI scam by

    imposing conditions, but he has violated the bail

    conditions    and    committed       similar   offences.
                                - 11 -
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                        CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




   Therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, he will commit

   the    similar    offences       and   obstacle    for        future

   examination conducted by the State Government.


VI. The   petitioner    is   repeated     offender    on     various

   examination       scam.      There     were   08     cases        at

   Kalaburagi District, 03 cases, one each at Bengaluru,

   Dharwad     and      Tumkuru.        Subsequently,       he     was

   involved in 03 cases at Kalaburagi and 05 cases in

   Yadgiri in respect of FDA examination. Therefore, the

   police have invoked the KCOCA Act against him. If he

   has granted bail he will tamper the prosecution

   witnesses and commit the similar offences, which is

   not ruled out. The KPSC examination is aheading, if

   he is granted bail, he may commit the similar

   offences. He is also involved in Junior Engineering

   Examination Scam, wherein a case was registered

   against    him      in    Annapurneshwari      Nagar          Police

   Station, at Bengaluru which is pending. Therefore,

   prayed for dismiss the petition.
                                  - 12 -
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                                CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




       07.    Having heard the arguments and perused the

records, the points that would arises for my consideration

as:-


       Whether the petitioner has made out a sufficient

       grounds for granting the bail under Section 439

       of Cr.P.C. (483 of BNSS).?


       08.    On perusal of the records, which reveals that as

per the complaint made by one Smt. Shilpa to the police

on     28.10.2023    a   case        in        Crime   No.160/2023      was

registered by the Ashok Nagar Police Station against the

petitioner    and   others.     It        is    alleged   that   when   the

complainant was supervisor in Examination Block at Room

No.38, the Deputy Director of KEA and the police brought

the accused No.1 - Trimurti. On enquiry, he was found

writing examination by using the Bluetooth Device. On

enquiry with, he has revealed that accused No.2 - Ambrish

was giving answer from outside. The police have arrested

both    the    accused   Nos.1            and     2.   Based     upon   the

confessional statement, this petitioner was implicated as
                              - 13 -
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                      CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




accused No.3. It was revealed that this petitioner has

received Rs.3,00,000/- from the accused Nos.1 and 2 and

agreed to receive another Rs.4,00,000/- from the accused

No.1, after the examination for helping them in the

examination by providing Bluetooth as well as answers.


      09.   During the investigation it is also revealed that

the accused No.19 who said to be a first division assistant

prepared the answer by obtaining the question papers

illegally from the petitioner and given to the petitioner and

in turn this petitioner supplied to various accused persons

for   writing   their   examination     of    FDA   recruitment

examination conducted by KEA. Accordingly, there were

03 cases registered against the petitioner in Kalaburagi

District and 05 cases were registered in Yadgiri District.

Totally 08 cases were registered in different examination

centre in two districts. This petitioner was named as

Kingpin in the crime registered in all 08 cases.
                              - 14 -
                                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                       CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     10.    The investigation papers also reveals that the

petitioner used to collect the huge lakhs of money from

the aspirants of the post and helped them for getting the

examination. This petitioner has not received the money

directly, but he has given the account number of kith and

kins and known persons and received the money from the

candidates. Thereafter, used to withdraw through transfer

and used to kept in F.D. and UTI fund etc., Accordingly,

the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2023 at Solapur. His

earlier bail petition was dismissed on 28.05.2024 in

Criminal Petition 200159/2024.


     11.    Now,   the   learned      Senior    Counsel     for   the

petitioner has contended that there is violation of Section

41 (A) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled

for bail, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of Satendar Kumar Anitil, as referred above. The

Hon'ble    Supreme   Court   has      held     that   the   offences

punishable with 07 years or less then bail shall be granted

to the accused persons. At Para No.25 of the judgment it

has held that non-compliance of Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C.
                               - 15 -
                                            NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                       CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




would entitle the accused to grant the bail. The learned

Senior Counsel has contended that there is no notice

served under Section 41 (A) of the Cr.P.C. on the

petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled for bail.


      12.   In this regard the Addl. SPP has contended that

on 03.11.2023 the police have got issued the notice under

Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C. when the notice was taken to the

house of the petitioner, the door was locked and he was

found absconding. Therefore, the police have affixed the

notice on the door and taken the photograph, in order to

show that they have complied the Section 41 (A) of

Cr.P.C. The copy of the panchanama and photographs of

police officers are produced before the Court, which

reveals that the under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. the notice

was duly affixed on the door of the house of the petitioner.

Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner, cannot be acceptable that there is non-

compliance of notice under Section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, on these grounds the petitioner is not entitled

for bail.
                                   - 16 -
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                           CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




      13.     The another contention raised by the petitioner

is that the ground of arrest was not intimated to the

petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel for the

petitioner has contended that grounds of arrest was not

made known to him. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled

for bail.


      14.         On the other hand, the learned Addl. SPP has

taken       the     contention   that      the   accused   purposely

absconding from the case and not available even for

serving the notice. Therefore, the police have obtained the

warrant from the concern Magistrate. Thereafter, they

went to Solapur and arrested the petitioner. Subsequently,

the arrest intimation was given. In this regard, the learned

Addl. SPP produced copy of the arrest memo before this

Court and also followed the guidelines issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu case and

even arrest intimation to the relative of the petitioner.
                              - 17 -
                                           NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                      CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     15.   The learned Addl. SPP. has also produced the

order sheet of the Trial Court for obtaining the warrant

from the Magistrate for arresting the accused. Therefore,

once the accused was willfully avoided the arrest by the

police and he has absconded and went to some other

State, the police have obtained the arrest warrant from

the Court in the form of Non-Bailable-Warrant, then they

arrested the petitioner on 10.11.2023. Therefore, it is

contended that the police have followed the guidelines

issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the fact

on this ground the petitioner is not entitled for bail.


     16.   As regards to the contention of the learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the previous bail petition

was rejected by this Court on the ground that there is a

Bar under Section 22 (5) of the KCOCA Act. The learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner has brought notice of this

Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that is

a ultra vier in the case of State of Maharastra vs.

Bharat Shanti Lal and others, reported in (2008) 13
                                - 18 -
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                             CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




SCC 5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

the Section 21 (5) of MCOCA Act, is arbitrary and

discriminatory and struck down the same. Based upon the

such judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Rajesh     Nayak     and     others           vs.   State       by    Vitla

PoliceBantiwal,          Taluk,         in      Criminal         Appeal

No.20/2018 dated 05.01.2018, has taken the similar

view that the Section 22 (5) of KCOCA Act is ultra vier.

This Court by following the Section 22 (5) of the KCOCA

Act, rejected the bail petition. However, Section 22 (5) of

the KCOCA Act was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. But this Court rejected the bail petition not only

under Section 22 (5) of KCOCA Act, but also some other

grounds    that    the    petitioner         was    involved     in    PSI

recruitment scam, junior engineer examination scam and

presently FDA recruitment scam and he is a habitual

offender   and    continuously     involved          in   the   scam     in

recruitment conducted by the State Government of various

authorities.
                             - 19 -
                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                     CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




     17.   On perusal of the other grounds that he is in

judicial custody for 09 months, investigation is already

completed, the charge-sheet is also filed, the co-accused

were already on bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

granted bail to the accused persons who are involved in

more cases etc., but herein this case the petitioner is

involved in the following cases:-


  (A)   Junior Engineering Examination Scam, where a

        case was registered in Annapurneshwari Nagar

        Police Station, at Bengaluru,

  (B)   There were 08 cases were registered in Kalaburagi

        District in respect of PSI Recruitment Scam,

  (C)   03 cases were registered in PSI Recruitment

        Scam, 01 at Kalaburgi, 02 at Dharward and 03 at

        Tumkuru.

  (D)   05 cases were registered in Yadgiri District in FDA

        Recruitment Examination Scam and

  (E)   03 cases in Kalaburagi including this case.
                                   - 20 -
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                           CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




        18.   This petitioner is on one or the reason is

continuously     involved    in     the     recruitment    scam    and

received crores rupees from various candidates and

helping them from getting the examination by providing

Bluetooth Device and giving answer to the candidates from

outside in collusion with the Head of the Institution, Head

Masters,      Supervisors,    Peon         etc.,   Now,    the    State

Government is likely to conduct KPSC examination for

selection of KAS officers and other staffs for Government

Department and various recruitment are also going to

conduct examination in near future. Such being the case,

at this stage if the petitioner is granted bail, once again he

will involve in the examination scam especially he will spoil

the KPSC examination conducted by the State Government

for selection of Tahasildar, Assistant Commissioner and

etc.,

        19.   It is well settled principle of Hon'ble Supreme

Court that 'bail is a rule, rejection is a exception'. But here

in this case, this petitioner falls under the category of

'exceptional cases' where the petitioner is not deserves for

the bail at present stage, when other KPSC examination

are going to be held in near future.
                                    - 21 -
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-K:6494
                                              CRL.P No. 200969 of 2024




       20.    Of course there are 137 witnesses and more

than 2,000 pages charge-sheet is filed, but that itself is

not a ground for to say that the Trial Court will not

commence the Trial in near future. If the accused persons

cooperate for trial, the Trial Court can conduct the trial in

day to day basis and dispose the matter as early as

possible. However, by keeping in mind that upcoming

KPSC examination, this Court having apprehension that he

will   once    again     involve     in      the   examination   scam.

Therefore, at this stage this petitioner is not entitled for

bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

                          ORDER

Accordingly, the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 - Sri. R. D. Patil, under Section 483 of BNSS, is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:SI