Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju R vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.P.No. 11096 OF 2024
C/W
CRL.P.Nos. 11176 OF 2024, 11180 OF 2024,
11212 OF 2024, 11282 OF 2024
11735 OF 2024, 12912 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 11096/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI DARSHAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE TOOGUDEEPA SRINIVAS,
RESIDING AT NO.217,
TOOGUDEEPA NILAYA,
F ROAD, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.
(NOW UNDER DURESS AT THE
CENTRAL PRISON BALLARI)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADV.)
Digitally
signed by AND:
NANDINI MS
Location:
High Court of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN
RELATION TO THE CASE IN CR.NO.250/2024 REGISTERED AT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BENGALURU, WHICH CULMINATED IN THE
FILING OF A FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.28777/2024, FOR THE
OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE P/U/S 120(B), 364, 384, 355, 302,
201, 143, 147, 148, 149 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH CASE IS
PRESENTLY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ACMM,
BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P.NO.11176/2024
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU R.
S/O RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.432, A & B BLOCK,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570022
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH G. ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P. S.
(REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 ON
REGULAR BAIL IN RELATION TO THE CASE IN CR.NO.250/2024
REGISTERED AT KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE P/U/S 149, 201, 302, 34, 120B, 355,
143, 147, 148 OF IPC, WHICH NOW, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
XXIV ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28777/2024.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
IN CRL.P.NO.11180/2024
BETWEEN:
ANU KUMAR @ ANU,
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A BEHIND ANJANEAYA TEMPLE,
SIHINIRU HONDA, HOLALKERE ROAD,
CHITRADURGA, PIN CODE-577501
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R. ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
PIN CODE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.250/2024
REGISTERED BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S. AND REGISTERED IN XXIV
A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED 24TH A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU AS C.C.NO.28777/2024 FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b), 364, 384, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148,
149, 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.11212/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKSHMAN M.
S/O MARIYAPPA C.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PRESENTLY, R/AT NO.1354, 9TH MAIN,
HAMPI NAGAR, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
SHETTYHALLI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA-571430.
(NOW IN J.C. AT SHIVAMOGGA)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KAMAKSHIPALYA P. S.
(REPRESENTED BY
LD. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.12 ON BAIL
IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.250/2024 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT KAMAKSHIPLAYA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,
364, 355, 384, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 34 OF IPC WHICH IS
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE XXIV A.C.M.M BENGALURU
IN C.C.NO.28777/2024.
IN CRL.P.NO.11282/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. PAVITRA GOWDA,
D/O PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.808, 24TH CROSS,
KENCHANAHALLI ROAD,
RR NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TOMMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MELANIE SEBASTIAN)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P. S., BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU - 560079
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR)
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ORDER THE RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
C.C.NO.28777/2024 ON THE FILE OF XXIV A.C.M.M COURT
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302,
201, 143, 147, 148, 149 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE BASIS OF THE
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S. IN WHICH THE
PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1
IN CRL.P.NO.11735/2024
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH @ JAGGA
S/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A NEAR AJAD MILL AND
MARAMMA TEMPLE, NEHRU ROAD,
RAILWAY COLONEY,
CHITRADURGA, PIN CODE - 577501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R. ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
PIN CODE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CR.NO.250/2024 REGISTERED BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S.,
REGISTERED IN XXIV ACMM AT BANGALORE, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED 24th ACMM, BANGALORE, AS CC.NO.28777/2024,
FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147,
148, 149, 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.12912/2024
BETWEEN:
MR. PRADOOSH S RAO @ PRADOOSH
S/O SUBBARAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. HOUSE NO.56, JP ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560085.
(PETITIONER PRESENTLY IN
JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.DIWAKARA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ADITYA D., ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR RESPONDENT.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.1319/2024 IN CR.NO.250/2024 OF THE KAMAKSHIPALYA
POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201,
302, 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LVI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 & 14 in Crime
No.250/2024 registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 34 IPC,
are before this Court in the above captioned criminal petitions
filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.250/2024 was registered by
Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City, against unknown
persons initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302
& 201 IPC on the basis of the first information dated
09.06.2024 received from Keval Ran Dorji - Security Officer of
Sattva Anugraha Apartments, Summanahalli, Bengaluru, after
the dead body of a unknown male aged about 30 to 35 years
which had injuries on it was found on the road side besides a
drainage in front of Sattva Anugraha Apartment complex.
During the course of investigation of the case, accused nos.1,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
2, 11, 12 & 14 were arrested on 11.06.2024 and accused nos.6
& 7 were arrested on 14.06.2024. Subsequently, the aforesaid
arrested accused were produced before the Court and
remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is
completed and charge sheet has been filed against 17 accused
persons. Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused nos.1, 2, 6,
7, 11, 12 & 14 in the charge sheet. Bail applications filed by the
petitioners before the Court of LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc. Nos.8580/2024, 8770/2024,
9126/2024, 8812/2024, 8799/2024, 8798/2024, 9120/2024
were rejected, and therefore, they are before this Court.
4. Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of accused no.2 has raised the following contentions:
• Though the dead body of a unknown male was
found on the morning of 09.06.2024 itself, no
inquest proceedings was held nor was the post-
mortem of the dead body conducted till
11.06.2024.
• The allegation that accused nos.4, 6, 7 & 8 had
kidnapped Renukaswamy on 08.06.2024 with an
intention to commit his murder cannot be believed
having regard to the statements of CW-7 -
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
Kashinathaiah - father of deceased during the
inquest proceedings, CW-8 - Smt. Rathnaprabha -
mother of the deceased dated 14.06.2024 and CW-
122 - Manjunath - Cashier of Bar & Restaurant
dated 20.08.2024, wherein the deceased on his
way from Chitradurga to Bengaluru along with
accused nos.4, 6, 7 & 8 had purchased liquor and
had paid for the same.
• Panchanama dated 12.06.2024 relating to seizure
of weapons used to commit the crime becomes
doubtful having regard to the statement of CW-69 -
Narendra Singh, the confession statement of
accused nos.4, 15 & 17 who were arrested on
10.06.2024, statement of CW-132 - Vinay - Police
Sub-Inspector of Kamakshipalya Police Station,
since the aforesaid statements indicate that
possession of scene of offence was taken over by
the police much prior to the panchanama dated
12.06.2024.
• The weapons used for committing the offence are
viz., nylon rope measuring 4 feet long, two twigs of
a tree and a wooden laati and no blood stains were
found on the twigs.
• Referring to the voluntary statement of accused
no.2 and the recovery panchanama dated
14.06.2024 under which his shoes and dress which
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
were worn by him on the date of crime, he submits
that item mentioned in the voluntary statement and
the item mentioned in the recovery mahazar
differs.
• Prosecution has relied on the evidence of CW-80,
CW-98 & CW-99 for establishing conspiracy, but
their statement do not in any way indicate that
there was conspiracy by the accused prior to the
crime.
• CW-69, CW-77, CW-78 & CW-79 are not eye-
witnesses to the crime and they have not spoken
about the role of accused no.2 in the crime.
• There is an inordinate delay in recording the
statements of the alleged eye-witnesses CW-76 -
Kiran and CW-91 - Puneeth, which is not explained.
The material on record would go to show that they
were very much available in Bengaluru and their
presence at the spot of crime was mentioned by
accused no.3 in his confession statement. In the
statement of CW-91 recorded under Sections 161 &
164 Cr.PC, he has not stated that he was not
available in Bengaluru from the date of crime till
20.06.2024, but in his further statement recorded
on 02.10.2024, the prosecution has sought to
explain his absence in Bengaluru for the said
period. The statements of alleged eye-witnesses
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
CW-76 & CW-91 differ with regard to the role of the
accused persons with regard to the alleged overt
act by the accused persons. In the remand
application dated 22.06.2024, no mention is made
about the recording of the statement of aforesaid
alleged eye-witnesses CW-76 & CW-91 which is the
requirement of law in view of Sections 167 & 172
Cr.PC.
5. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Crl.A.No.940/2012 (State of Karnataka Vs Ramaswamy &
others) disposed of on 03.04.2018 and in the case of
SHAILESH KUMAR VS STATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND) - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 203. In support of
the argument regarding delay in recording the statements, he
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of SHAHID KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN -
(2016)4 SCC 96 and HARBEER SINGH VS SHEESHPAL &
OTHERS - (2016)16 SCC 418.
6. Sri Sandesh Chouta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
accused no.11 has raised the following contentions:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• Remand of all the accused persons in the case is
bad in law since grounds of arrest was not served
on them.
• The order sheet of the committal court does not
reflect about service of grounds of arrest on the
accused at any point of time. The documents which
were served on accused no.11 cannot be
considered as compliance of the requirement of
Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.
• The check list under Section 41(B)(II) of Cr.PC was
served on the accused persons for the first time on
09.10.2024 along with a memo by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and even the said
document cannot be considered as grounds of
arrest. Even if it is considered as grounds of arrest,
the same is served much after the accused were
arrested and remanded to custody.
• Referring to the check list dated 11.06.2024 issued
under Section 41(B)(II) of Cr.PC, it is contended
that genuineness of the said documents becomes
seriously doubtful since it bears the signature of
CW-76 - Kiran whose statement under Section 161
Cr.PC was recorded on 15.06.2024 and this witness
has not spoken about his presence in the police
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
station on 11.06.2024 or at the time of arrest of
the accused on 11.06.2024.
• The check list issued under Section 41(B)(II) Cr.PC,
which according to the prosecution is the grounds
of arrest is a cyclostyled copy and this document is
served on all the accused persons, whereas the
grounds of arrest should contain material which is
personal to the accused.
• Failure to serve the grounds of arrest in writing to
the arrested accused entitles the accused for bail.
• Referring to the statement of the eye-witnesses, it
is contended that the allegation against accused
no.11 is that he had slapped the deceased on his
face. Accused no.11 has no other criminal
antecedents.
• In the articles which accused no.11 was wearing on
the date of incident, no blood stains were found as
per the recovery mahazar, but in the FSL report,
there is a mention of blood stains on the said
articles.
• Referring to the statement of CW-92, it is
contended that it becomes highly doubtful that CW-
91 was an eye-witness to the crime since CW-91
had not disclosed anything to CW-92 when he had
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
called him in the evening of 08.06.2024 and
informed him that the person who had come inside
the Intact Autopark India Pvt. Ltd., had fallen down
after loosing conscious and he was shifted to
hospital.
• From an overall appreciation of the material
evidence, it cannot be said that the accused
persons had intention to commit the murder of the
deceased. No deadly weapons were used and there
was absolutely no preparation by the accused.
There is no evidence to show that death has
occurred inside Intact Autopark India Pvt. Ltd.
7. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PANKAJ BANSAL VS UNION OF INDIA - (2024)7 SCC 576
and PRABIR PURKAYASTHA VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) -
(2024)8 SCC 254.
8. Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of accused no.1 has raised the following contentions:
• The only allegation against her is that she had gone
to the spot of crime along with accused no.2 and
had slapped on the face of deceased with her
chappal.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• Deceased was assaulted by other accused prior to
the arrival of accused no.1 at the spot of crime and
also after she had left the spot of crime. It is only
as a result of cumulative assault, death appears to
have occurred.
• From a overall reading of the material on record,
prima facie it appears that there was no motive or
intention to commit the murder.
• Accused no.1 is a married lady having a grown up
daughter studying in 9th Standard. She is in
custody for the last nearly six months.
9. Sri Arun Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of accused no.12 having reiterated the arguments
addressed by the earlier learned Counsels, has raised the
following contentions:
• The allegation against accused no.12 is that he had
assaulted the deceased with hand. CW-76 who is an
eye-witness has not spoken about the role of
accused no.12, whereas only CW-91 speaks about
the role of accused no.12. CW-76 - Kiran is a
signatory to the arrest memo allegedly served on
accused no.12 who was arrested on 11.06.2024.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• If the arrest memo has to be believed, then the
delay in recording the statement of alleged witness
CW-76 - Kiran becomes fatal to the case of the
prosecution. On the contrary, since the statement
of CW-76 - Kiran was recorded on 15.06.2024, it
becomes highly doubtful that on 11.06.2024 the
arrest memo was served on accused no.12 since it
bears the signature of CW-76 - Kiran.
• The prosecution in all has cited 262 charge-sheet
witnesses, and therefore, chances of trial being
completed in the near future is very remote.
10. Sri Ranganath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
accused nos.6 & 7 has raised the following contentions:
• The statement of charge-sheet witnesses would
only go to show that accused no.3 had instructed
accused no.4 to bring Renukaswamy to Bengaluru
only for the reason that he had sent obscene
messages and videos to accused no.1, and
therefore, he needs to be taught a lesson.
• Nobody has stated that with an intention to commit
his murder, Renukaswamy was brought to
Bengaluru by accused nos.6 & 7 along with accused
nos.4 & 8.
• Accused nos.6 & 7 had not conspired with any other
accused persons and had not even spoken to
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
accused no.3 prior to they reaching Bengaluru.
Therefore, the allegation of conspiracy invoking
120B IPC and allegation of kidnapping deceased
with an intention to commit his murder invoking
Section 364 IPC cannot be sustained.
• Both the eye-witnesses viz., CW-76 & CW-91 have
not made any allegation against the petitioners
about assaulting the deceased in their statements
recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.
• Deceased had only one lacerated wound on his
forehead from which blood would have been oozed
out and in the recovery mahazars prepared by the
police, most of articles did not have any blood
stains, but in the FSL report almost all articles
seized are found to be blood stained, which in
normal circumstances, is highly improbable.
• Accused nos.6 & 7 do not have any criminal
antecedents.
11. Sri K.Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of accused no.14 has raised the following contentions:
• According to the prosecution, accused no.14 had
initially contacted CW-132 - Vinay - Sub-Inspector
of Police, Kamakshipalya Police Station, and had
informed about the alleged incident.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• Accused no.2 had allegedly given a sum of Rs.30
lakhs to accused no.14 for distribution to the
accused persons who had participated in the crime,
but the entire amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been
recovered in the present case from the residence of
accused no.14.
• The allegation against accused nos.13 & 14 are
similar and accused no.13 has been granted regular
bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
12. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent has contended as under:
• The conduct of accused no.2 disentitles him of any
relief to him by this Court. Though this Court had
granted interim bail to accused no.2 on medical
grounds to enable him to undergo surgery of his
spine, till date he has not undergone any surgery.
• The prosecution during the course of investigation
has collected more than sufficient material to
connect all the accused persons to the crime in
question.
• The charge sheet material clearly demonstrates
that the accused persons had conspired to commit
the murder of Renukaswamy and in furtherance of
such conspiracy as per the instructions of accused
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
no.3 who is working in the house of accused nos.1
& 2, accused nos.4, 6 & 7 had brought the
deceased in the car of accused no.8 to Bengaluru
and had taken him to a shed at Pattanagere,
wherein initially accused nos.3 to 7 & 9 had
assaulted Renukaswamy with weapons. Thereafter,
accused no.3 had approached accused no.2 and
informed him that deceased Renukaswamy was
kept in the shed at Pattanagere. Accused no.2,
thereafter picked up accused no.1 from her house
and after arriving at the spot of crime,
Renukaswamy was once again assaulted by
accused nos.1 to 7, 9 to 12 & 14.
• Accused nos.4, 6 & 7 on instructions of accused
no.3 had deceitfully induced the deceased to travel
with them from Chitradurga to Bengaluru, and
therefore, the offence punishable under Section 364
IPC is clearly established in the present case.
• The charge sheet witnesses CW-69, 76, 77, 78, 79
& 91 have spoken about the role of accused
persons and CWs-76 & 91 are the eye-witnesses to
the incident who have clearly spoken about the role
of each of the accused in the present case.
• The deceased was brutally assaulted and he had
sustained 39 injuries on his body as reflected in the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
post-mortem report. 17 ribs of the deceased were
found to be fractured.
• The doctor who has conducted the post-mortem
has given the report dated 23.08.2024, wherein it
is mentioned that blood was oozing out of 13
injuries which was found in the body of the
deceased and not from one injury as sought to be
contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
• The movement of accused nos.1 & 2 has been
captured in the CCTV in the house of accused no.1
and their subsequent movement in the car to the
spot of crime is also captured in the CCTV.
• The clothes and articles of the accused persons
which were recovered from their residence were
forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination and the FSL report would go to show
that the clothes and other articles which the
accused persons were wearing on the date of the
incident had blood stains on them.
• In addition to the recovery of weapons used to
commit the crime from the spot of crime, huge
amount of money which was distributed by accused
no.2 for the purpose of litigation and other
expenses has been recovered in the present case.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• Though there is a delay in recording the statement
of the eye-witnesses in the present case, the same
has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution
by recording the further statement of the said
witnesses.
• Recovery from the accused has been made in
furtherance of their statement and whatever
statement made by the accused is found in the
pachanama. The discrepancy, if any, in the
confession statement of the accused and in the
panchanama is of no consequence.
• The prosecution has collected CDR details of the
accused which is a vital piece of evidence and
merely for the reason that accused persons are
known to each other, the evidentiary value of CDR
details does not loose its credence.
• Charge sheet has been filed against the accused
persons invoking Section 149 IPC, and therefore,
each one of the accused are liable to be held guilty
for the crime committed in this case.
• The accused persons have deleted their
conversations and video recordings from the mobile
phone and also have washed their clothes and tried
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
to destroy the evidence which clearly attracts the
offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
• Referring to an article published on 13.08.2021 by
National Research Centre under the heading
"Human identification from washed blood stains", it
is contended that even after washing of clothes
using detergent/soap, blood stains can be found in
the said clothes.
• Grounds of arrest has been served on all the
accused immediately after they were arrested and
there is complete compliance of the requirement of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prabir Purkayastha's case supra.
• The prosecution was not aware that the persons
who have signed the grounds of arrest were
material witnesses in the present case and only
subsequently this aspect of the matter has come to
the notice of the prosecution, and therefore, there
is delay in recording the statement of the said
witnesses though their signature is found in the
grounds of arrest served on the accused persons.
• The accused persons are all influential persons and
in the event they are enlarged on bail, chances of
they tampering with the charge sheet witnesses
cannot be ruled out.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• In addition to the eye-witnesses, even the
circumstantial evidence clearly establishes a prima
facie case against the accused persons. Petitioners
have committed a heinous offence and if they are
enlarged on bail, a wrong message will be sent to
the Society.
13. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
JAFARUDHEEN & OTHERS VS STATE OF KERALA - (2022)8 SCC
440, SIDHARTHA VASHISHT VS STATE - (2010)6 SCC 1, BABU
SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA -
(2024)8 SCC 149, and the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of KUM. SHUBHA @ SHUBHASHANKAR VS
STATE OF KARNATAKA - CRL.A.No.722/2010 & connected
cases.
14. In response to the submissions made by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor about the medical condition of
accused no.2 and his conduct after he was granted interim bail,
learned Senior Counsel C.V.Nagesh has made the following
submissions:
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
• Accused no.2 has not violated any one of the
conditions imposed by this Court while granting him
interim bail.
• The medical records of accused no.2 on which this
Court had placed reliance while granting interim
bail was produced by the Special Public Prosecutor
on behalf of the State.
• Referring to the medical reports issued by
Gleneagles BGS Hospital, Kengeri, Bengaluru,
where accused no.2 has been undergoing treatment
subsequent to his release on interim bail, it is
submitted that medical records of accused no.2
which were issued by Ballari Medical College and
Research Centre dated 22.10.2024 on the basis of
which interim bail was granted to the petitioner,
was seen by the Specialist Doctor at BGS Hospital,
Bengaluru, and the diagnosis made earlier is
confirmed based on further medical evaluation.
• Referring to the medical reports from BGS Hospital
dated 06.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 02.12.2024 and
05.12.2024, it is submitted that accused no.2 has
been regularly undergoing physiotherapy and he is
being prepared for the surgery, and the doctors at
BGS Hospital have opined that these are temporary
measures and surgery remains the necessary step
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
to address the underlying condition of accused no.2
effectively.
• In the medical report dated 02.12.2024, the
doctors of BGS Hospital, have mentioned that
accused no.2 needs to undergo "lumbar
decompression and fusion" which is planned on
11.12.2024.
• It is for the doctors to decide as to when the
surgery has to be done and what kind of treatment
has to be given to the patient and it is not for
accused no.2 to decide the same. The treatment
undergone by accused no.2 till date at BGS
Hospital, has been mentioned therein which is self-
explanatory.
15. Accused no.2 had filed IA-1/2024 seeking interim bail on
medical grounds. This Court had directed the prosecution to
produce the medical report of accused no.2 who was lodged in
Ballari Jail. Pursuant to the same, the Special Public Prosecutor
had placed on record the medical report of accused no.2 issued
by the Head of Department of Neurosurgery, Ballari Medical
College and Research Centre, Ballari, which stated that
considering the medical condition of accused no.2, he is
required to undergo surgery in a Super Speciality Hospital and
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
the hospital at Ballari does not have requisite facility to perform
the surgery. It is in this background, accused no.2 was granted
interim bail subject to certain conditions.
16. Accused no.2, who thereafter, was admitted in BGS
Hospital, Kengeri, Bengaluru, for his treatment, has submitted
periodical medical reports before this Court in compliance of the
conditions imposed while granting interim bail, which prima
facie, would go to show that he is undergoing treatment
subsequent to his release on interim bail and the medical
reports dated 06.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 02.12.2024 and
05.12.2024 would indicate that accused no.2 has been
undergoing physiotherapy and he is being prepared for the
surgery, and the doctors at BGS Hospital, Bengaluru, who have
confirmed the medical report dated 22.10.2024 issued by
Ballari Medical College and Research Centre on the basis of
which interim bail was granted to accused no.2, have opined
that the treatment now undergone by accused no.2 are
temporary measures and surgery remains the necessary step
to address the underlying condition of accused no.2 effectively.
Therefore, at this stage, this Court has no reason to disbelieve
the medical condition of accused no.2 having regard to the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
reports received from the Ballari Medical College and Research
Centre, Ballari, and BGS Hospital, Bengaluru.
17. The parameters for consideration of regular bail
application on its merits and the parameters for considering the
bail application on medical records, are totally different. The
consequences of suppression, misrepresentation or making
misleading statement, if any, before this Court, will always take
its own recourse.
18. The gist of the case of the prosecution as found in the
charge sheet is as under:
Deceased Renukaswamy who had an Instagram account
in the name of Gautam.K.S., was sending obscene messages to
accused no.1 - Pavithra Gowda on her Instagram account from
the month of February 2024 onwards. On 03.06.2024, accused
no.1 asked for the mobile phone number of deceased during
chatting with Renukaswamy on Instagram. Accordingly,
Renukaswamy had provided accused no.1 his mobile phone
number. Accused no.1 gave the mobile phone number of
accused no.3 to Renukaswamy stating that the said number
belongs to her and asked Renukaswamy to chat with her on
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
that mobile phone number on whatsapp. Accused no.1
allegedly had informed accused no.3 who was working in the
house of accused nos.1 & 2 about the derogatory and obscene
messages forwarded by Renukaswamy. After deceased spoke
to accused no.1 on the mobile number furnished by her, she
also asked him to furnish the location of his house. This was
informed by accused no.3 to accused no.2 who inturn
instructed accused no.3 to secure deceased for the purpose of
teaching him a lesson. The deceased had informed accused
no.1 on the mobile phone of accused no.3 that on 07.06.2024,
he was near the court premises at Chitradurga. This was
informed by accused no.3 to accused nos.4, 6 & 7 who went in
search of Renukaswamy near the court premises but could not
find him on the said date. On 08.06.2024 since Renukaswamy
had shared his residential address with accused no.3 believing
it to be accused no.1, accused no.3 informed accused no.4
about the location and address of deceased, and thereafter,
accused nos.4, 6 & 7 followed deceased and at about 10.00
a.m. they picked up him at J.C.Circle, Chitradurga, and brought
him to Bengaluru in the car belonging to accused no.8. As per
the instructions of accused no.3, accused nos.4, 6 & 7 brought
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
Renukaswamy to the shed belonging to Intact Autopark India
Pvt. Ltd., at Pattanagere, and thereafter, accused nos.3, 5 & 9
also came to the aforesaid shed and they along with accused
nos.4, 6 & 7 assaulted Renukaswamy with two twigs of a tree,
wooden laati and nylon rope. Accused no.9 allegedly also
tortured him by giving electric shock. Thereafter, accused no.3
went to Stoney Brook Restaurant, where accused no.2 was
having his lunch along with accused nos.10, 11 & 14 and
informed accused no.2 that Renukaswamy was brought to
Bengaluru and he was in the shed at Pattanagere. Accused
no.2, thereafter, picked up accused no.1 from her house and
along with accused nos.10 & 14 came to the shed at
Pattanagere. Accused nos.3 & 11 also came to the said shed
and in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, accused nos.1 to
7, 9 to 12 & 14, allegedly assaulted the deceased brutally by
using the aforesaid two twigs of a tree, wooden laati and nylon
rope, and as a result of the said assault, Renukaswamy had
died. Accused nos.1, 2 & 10 allegedly left the scene of crime
thereafter, and as per the instructions of accused no.2, the
other accused who was present there made arrangements to
dispose of the dead body. Accused no.2 allegedly gave a sum of
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
Rs.10 lakhs to accused no.10 who in turn through accused
no.13 conspired with accused nos.14 to 17 to confess to the
crime and surrender before the police. Thereafter, accused
nos.4, 6 to 8, 10 to 12, 14, 15 & 17 disposed of the dead body
near Sattva Apartment, which was found by the first informant
on the morning of 09.06.2024.
19. FIR was, thereafter, registered against unknown persons
by Kamakshipalya Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 & 201 IPC, and on 10.06.2024, accused
nos.4, 15, 16 & 17 surrendered before the police in furtherance
of their conspiracy with the other accused persons. During the
course of interrogation of the surrendered accused, the
Investigating Officer allegedly came to know about the
conspiracy and the role of the other accused persons who were
involved in the crime. Thereafter, on 11.06.2024, the
Investigating Officer arrested accused nos.1, 2, 3, 5 & 10 to 14.
Accused no.8 surrendered before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Chitradurga, on 13.06.2024, and accused nos.6 & 7
surrendered at Chitradurga on 14.06.2024. Accused no.9 was
arrested at Bengaluru on 15.06.2024. Investigation of the case
was completed and charge sheet was filed against 17 persons
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
and petitioners herein are arrayed as accused nos.1, 2, 6, 7,
11, 12 & 14 in the charge sheet.
20. The accused have been charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143,
147, 148, 149, 34 IPC. The major offences alleged in the
charge sheet are the offences punishable under Sections 364 &
302 IPC. Section 364 IPC provides for punishment to the
accused who kidnaps or abducts a person in order to commit
his murder. Section 364 IPC reads as under:
"364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to
murder.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in
order that such person may be murdered or may be
so disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
21. For the purpose of attracting the offence under Section
364 IPC, the accused should have kidnapped a person
intending or knowingly it to be likely that the person kidnapped
may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to put in danger
of being murdered, or otherwise, the accused by force should
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
have compelled the person or by deceitful means induced the
person to go from any place.
22. In the case on hand, since deceased Renukaswamy was
sending derogatory and obscene messages to accused no.1 in
the name of Goutham.K.S., and therefore, a trap was
successfully laid by accused nos.1 & 3 to know the actual
person who was sending the derogatory messages, and
thereafter, the place of residence and the actual location of the
person who had sent the derogatory messages was verified and
on instructions of accused no.3 who is the employee of accused
nos.1 & 2, accused no.4 who is the President of Fans' Club of
accused no.2 in Chitradurga, had approached Renukaswamy
along with accused nos.6 & 7 and asked him to accompany
them to Bengaluru since accused no.2 intended to speak to him
as he was sending derogatory messages to accused no.1 who
allegedly is the girl friend of accused no.2. Renukaswamy who
had left his house on the morning of 08.06.2024 had
accompanied accused nos.4, 6 & 7 in the car of accused no.8 to
Bengaluru as he was informed by accused no.4 that accused
no.2 intends to speak to him and he inturn needs to apologize
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
and seek pardon from accused nos.1 & 2 for the act committed
by him.
23. The statement of CW-7 - father of Renukaswamy found in
the inquest mahazar and statement of CW-8 - mother of
Renukaswamy, goes to show that when they contacted
Renukaswamy who was on his way to Bengaluru along with
accused nos.4, 6, 7 & 8, he had informed them that he was
going out along with his friends and he would not be coming
home for lunch. The material on record would to show that on
the way from Chitradurga to Bengaluru, on Bengaluru-
Tumakuru Highway, Renukaswamy had purchased liquor from
Durga Bar & Restaurant and also had paid a sum of Rs.640/-
for the same using his Phonepe. The CCTV footage in the Bar &
Restaurant reflects that all the inmates of the car which was
driven by accused no.8 had gone to the Bar & Restaurant for
the purpose of purchase of liquor. After reaching Bengaluru, as
per the instructions of accused no.3, Renukaswamy was
brought to the shed belonging to accused no.10 situated at
Pattanagere within the limits of Rajarajeshwarinagar Police
Station, Bengaluru. In the said shed, accused nos.3 to 7 & 9
had allegedly abused and thereafter assaulted Renukaswamy
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
with two twigs of a tree, one wooden laati and a nylon rope.
Thereafter, accused no.3 had gone to the place where accused
no.2 was having his lunch along with his friends and informed
him that Renukaswamy was brought to the shed at
Pattanagere. Accused no.2 inturn had gone to the house of
accused no.1 and after picking her, he had gone to the shed at
Pattanagere along with accused no.14. Thereafter, accused
nos.2 to 7, 9 to 12 & 14 had all assaulted Renukaswamy with
the aforesaid four weapons and also with their hands and legs.
Accused no.1 allegedly had slapped Renukaswamy with her
chappal and accused no.2 who was wearing shoe allegedly had
kicked on the chest of Renukaswamy. It is also alleged that
accused no.9 with the help of a electric shock torch (Meggar)
had given shock treatment to Renukaswamy. As a result of the
cumulative assault made by the aforesaid accused,
Renukaswamy had died and subsequently, his dead body was
shifted by accused nos.4, 6 to 8, 10 to 12, 14, 15 & 17 to the
place where it was found on 09.06.2024 by the first informant,
and thereafter, accused nos.4 & 15 to 17 had surrendered
before the police on 10.06.2024.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
24. From the nature of weapons used by the accused persons
to assault the deceased, it cannot be said that they had
prepared themselves to assault Renukaswamy and commit his
murder. Therefore, whether the accused persons really had the
intention to commit the murder of Renukaswamy would be a
question that may have to be considered by the Trial Court
during the course of trial. Since Renukaswamy had voluntarily
accompanied accused nos.4, 6, 7 & 8 to Bengaluru and on the
way he had informed his parents that he was with his friends
and he would not be coming home to have lunch, and further
on the way to Bengaluru, he along with the inmates of the car
had gone to a Bar & Restaurant and had purchased liquor, the
question whether Renukaswamy was kidnapped or abducted for
the purpose of committing his murder also arises for
consideration, which needs to be thrashed out in the full-
fledged trial before the Trial Court.
25. According to the prosecution, CWs-69, 76, 77, 78, 79 &
91 are the prime witnesses in the present case who speak
about the role of the accused persons in the alleged crime.
CWs-69, 77 to 79 are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged
assault made by accused nos.1 to 7, 9 to 12 & 14. These
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
witnesses have only spoken about Renukawamy being brought
to the shed and also about the other accused persons
subsequently arriving near the spot of crime. The statement of
these witnesses have been recorded between 13.06.2024 and
15.06.2024.
26. CWs-76 & 91 are the alleged eye-witnesses who have
spoken to about the overt acts of the accused who allegedly
have assaulted Renukaswamy. Statement of CW-76 under
Section 161 of Cr.PC was recorded on 15.06.2024 and his
statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded on
22.06.2024. The statement of CW-91 under Section 161 of
Cr.PC was recorded on 20.06.2024 and his statement under
Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded on 21.06.2024. In the
relevant remand applications, no mention is made about
recording of the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses. The
statements of eye-witnesses relating to the overt acts of the
accused suffers from contradictions.
27. CWs-69, 76 to 79 & 91 were all working within the
compound of the shed at Pattanagere in various capacities. A
reading of the statement of CW-69 who is the security guard of
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
the property in which the shed in question is located, would
clearly go to show that the police had taken custody of the said
premises on 11.06.2024 (i.e., Tuesday) and they had locked
the same. However, the statement of the aforesaid witnesses
who were working in the property in question at Pattanagere
under various capacities have been belatedly recorded by the
police. The presence of CWs-76 & 91 at the spot of crime has
been spoken to by CWs-69, 77, 78 & 79 and even accused no.4
during the course of his confession had spoken to about the
presence of these witnesses near the spot of crime. CW-76 -
Kiran is also a signatory to the memo of grounds of arrest of
accused nos.12 & 13 who were arrested on 11.06.2024. If CW-
76 - Kiran had signed the memo of grounds of arrest of
accused nos.12 & 13 on 11.06.2024, then the prosecution
needs to explain the inordinate delay in recording the
statement. The prosecution has recorded the further
statements of CWs-76 & 91 belatedly after a period of more
than two months in order to explain the reason for the delay in
recording the statements of the said witnesses under Section
161 of Cr.PC. The worthiness and validity of such explanation
sought to be given by the prosecution for belatedly recording
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
the statements of the eye-witnesses is an issue which again
needs consideration by the Trial Court based on the evidence
placed before it.
28. In Sidhartha Vashishta's case supra, it has been held that
when identification of witnesses and interrogation consumes
time, delay in recording statement itself cannot be treated as
fatal to the case of the prosecution. The delay can be explained
and the court must assess whether such explanation is
acceptable during the course of trial.
29. Further, though the prosecution has alleged that the
accused persons had conspired to commit the murder of
Renukaswamy and in furtherance of such conspiracy he was
kidnapped or abducted from Chitradurga and brought to
Bengaluru, none of the witnesses have spoken to about the
alleged conspiracy. CWs-80, 98 & 99 are the witnesses, who
according to the prosecution speak about the alleged
conspiracy. But a reading of the statement of these witnesses
do not prima facie reveal that there was any such conspiracy by
the accused as alleged.
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
30. The prosecution, in addition to the statements of the
alleged eye-witnesses, has also strenuously placed reliance on
the circumstantial evidence, which according to the
prosecution, clearly connects the accused persons to the
alleged crime. According to the prosecution, blood stains were
found in the weapons used to commit the crime and also in the
clothes, shoes and chappal which the accused persons were
wearing at the time of committing the crime. Perusal of the
recovery panchanamas would go to show that in most of the
articles which were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for examination, blood stains were not initially
found. However, in the FSL report, it is stated that even in the
articles and weapons in which blood stains were not initially
found while subjecting them to panchanamas, blood stains
were found. The post-mortem report of the deceased would
reveal that he had suffered totally 39 injuries on his body.
Injury no.1 which is a laceration measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep present over left temporo parietal region, is the only
blood oozing injury as found in the post-mortem report, and
therefore, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the
accused that it is highly improbable that from a small lacerated
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
wound as found in the post-mortem report blood would have
poured sufficient to stain the weapons, clothes, shoes and
chappal of all the accused persons.
31. The prosecution, however, has relied upon the further
opinion of the doctor wherein it is stated that 13 injuries out of
39 injuries were blood oozing injuries. The post-mortem report
is dated 11.06.2024, whereas the further opinion of the doctor
is dated 23.08.2024. According to the learned Counsel for the
accused, since the further opinion which is belatedly given by
the doctor is contrary to the post-mortem report, the same is
of no significance. The said aspect of the matter needs to be
considered by the Trial Court and this Court cannot appreciate
this aspect of the matter since this Court cannot hold a mini
trial while considering the bail application of the accused.
32. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the seizure of
the weapons from the spot of crime under seizure mahazar
dated 12.06.2024. As observed earlier, a reading of the
statement of CW-69 recorded on 13.06.2024 would go to show
that the police had arrived at the spot of crime on 11.06.2024
(i.e., Tuesday) itself and they had locked the premises on the
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
said date. The confession statement of accused no.4 that was
recorded on 10.06.2024 discloses that he had revealed the spot
of crime to the police, and thereafter some of the accused were
even arrested on 11.06.2024 itself. The weapons used to
commit the crime were seized from open area and they were
not concealed. In view of the aforesaid, at this stage, much
importance cannot be attached to the recovery of weapons
from the scene of crime allegedly used to commit the crime.
33. Though learned Counsel for accused no.2 has strenuously
contended that confession statement of accused no.2 would go
to show that accused no.2 was wearing chappal at the time of
crime and what is allegedly recovered at his instance is his
shoes, much importance cannot be given to the same at this
stage since recovery is as per the statement of the accused
which is found in the recovery mahazar.
34. The prosecution, in addition to the statement of eye-
witnesses, has also placed reliance on the circumstantial
evidence including CDRs and the location of the mobile phones
of the accused persons at the time and date of crime, etc. A
detailed analysis of all these circumstantial evidence cannot be
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
made by this Court at this stage as the same would have an
impact on the trial of the case.
35. In the case of KANWAR SINGH MEENA VS STATE OF
RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER - (2012)12 SCC 180, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that testing the credibility of the
statement made by the witness is function of the Trial Court
and it would not be appropriate to go in depth with the
evidence at the stage of consideration of bail.
36. In the case of SATISH JAGGI VS STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS - (2007)11 SCC 195, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of granting of
bail, the court can only go into the question of prima facie case
established for grant of bail. It cannot go into the question of
credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the
prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of
prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LT. COL.
PRASAD SHRIKANT PUROHIT VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -
(2018)11 SCC 458, in paragraph 31 has observed as under:
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
"31. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merits of the case has not to
be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant bail
lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or
denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts
and circumstances of each particular case. But at
the same time, right to bail is not to be denied
merely because of the sentiments of the community
against the accused."
38. In the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VS CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION - (2012)1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 21 to 23 has observed as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of
bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is deemed to
be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
22. From the earliest times, it was
appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands
that some unconvicted persons should be held in
custody pending trial to secure their attendance at
the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the
operative test. In this country, it would be quite
contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person
should be punished in respect of any matter, upon
which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty
upon only the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention
being the object of refusal of bail, one must not
lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it
would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a
mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the
accused has been convicted for it or not or to
refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the
purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a
lesson."
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
39. In the case of SATENDAR KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER - (2022)10 SCC 51,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 93 & 94, has
observed as under:
"93. The rate of conviction in criminal cases in
India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this
factor weighs on the mind of the Court while
deciding the bail applications in a negative sense.
Courts tend to think that the possibility of a
conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications
will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal
principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail
application, which is not punitive in nature with that
of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the
contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued
custody would be a case of grave injustice.
94. Criminal courts in general with the trial
court in particular are the guardian angels of
liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code, has to be
preserved, protected, and enforced by the criminal
courts. Any conscious failure by the criminal courts
would constitute an affront to liberty. It is the pious
duty of the criminal court to zealously guard and
keep a consistent vision in safeguarding the
constitutional values and ethos. A criminal court
must uphold the constitutional thrust with
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
responsibility mandated on them by acting akin to a
high priest."
40. A strong contention has been urged on behalf of the
petitioners that grounds of arrest was not served on the
accused immediately after their arrest which is a requirement
of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj
Bansal's case supra and Prabir Purkayasta's case supra.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal's case
supra, at paragraphs 34, 35, 38 to 45, has observed as under:
"34. The more important issue presently is as
to how ED is required to "inform" the arrested
person of the grounds for his/her arrest. Prayer (iii)
in the writ petitions filed by the appellants
pertained to this.
35. Section 19 does not specify in clear terms
as to how the arrested person is to be "informed" of
the grounds of arrest and this aspect has not been
dealt with or delineated in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary - (2023) 12 SCC 1. Similarly, in V.
Senthil Balaji - (2024) 3 SCC 51, this Court merely
noted that the information of the grounds of arrest
should be "served" on the arrestee, but did not
elaborate on that issue. Pertinent to note, the
grounds of arrest were furnished in writing to the
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
arrested person in that case. Surprisingly, no
consistent and uniform practice seems to be
followed by ED in this regard, as written copies of
the grounds of arrest are furnished to arrested
persons in certain parts of the country but in other
areas, that practice is not followed and the grounds
of arrest are either read out to them or allowed to
be read by them.
38. In this regard, we may note that Article
22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that
no person who is arrested shall be detained in
custody without being informed, as soon as may
be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the
fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested
person, the mode of conveying information of the
grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful
so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be
noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person
arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release
on bail but it postulates that unless the twin
conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such
a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The
twin conditions set out in the provision are that,
firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the
application for release, that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the arrested person is not
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet
this requirement, it would be essential for the
arrested person to be aware of the grounds on
which the authorised officer arrested him/her under
Section 19 and the basis for the officer's "reason to
believe" that he/she is guilty of an offence
punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the
arrested person has knowledge of these facts that
he/she would be in a position to plead and prove
before the Special Court that there are grounds to
believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so
as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore,
communication of the grounds of arrest, as
mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher
purpose and must be given due importance.
39. We may also note that the language of
Section 19 PMLA puts it beyond doubt that the
authorised officer has to record in writing the
reasons for forming the belief that the person
proposed to be arrested is guilty of an offence
punishable under the 2002 Act. Section 19(2)
requires the authorised officer to forward a copy of
the arrest order along with the material in his
possession, referred to in Section 19(1), to the
adjudicating authority in a sealed envelope. Though
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
it is not necessary for the arrested person to be
supplied with all the material that is forwarded to
the adjudicating authority under Section 19(2),
he/she has a constitutional and statutory right to be
"informed" of the grounds of arrest, which are
compulsorily recorded in writing by the authorised
officer in keeping with the mandate of Section
19(1) PMLA. As already noted hereinbefore, it
seems that the mode of informing this to the
persons arrested is left to the option of ED's
authorised officers in different parts of the country
i.e. to either furnish such grounds of arrest in
writing or to allow such grounds to be read by the
arrested person or be read over and explained to
such person.
40. That apart, Rule 6 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering (the Forms and the Manner of
Forwarding a Copy of Order of Arrest of a Person
Along with the Material to the Adjudicating
Authority and its Period of Retention) Rules, 2005,
titled "Forms of Records", provides to the effect
that the arresting officer while exercising powers
under Section 19(1) PMLA, shall sign the arrest
order in Form III appended to those Rules. Form
III, being the prescribed format of the arrest order,
reads as under:
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482
CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024
& SIX CONNECTED CASES
"ARREST ORDER
Whereas, I ......... Director/Deputy
Director/Assistant Director/Officer authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government, have reason to
believe that ...... (name of the person arrested)
resident of ...... has been guilty of an offence
punishable under the provisions of the Prevention
of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred on me under sub-section (1) of Section
19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002
(15 of 2003), I hereby arrest the said ...... (name of
the person arrested) at ...... hours on ...... and he has
been informed of the grounds for such arrest.
Dated at ...... on this ...... day of ...... Two
thousand ......
Arresting Officer
(Signature with Seal)
To
...........................
...........................
(Name and complete address of the person arrested)"
41. Needless to state, this format would be followed all over the country by the authorised officers who exercise the power of arrest under Section 19(1) PMLA but, in certain parts of the country, the authorised officer would inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest by furnishing the same in writing, while in other parts of the country, on the basis of the very same
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES prescribed format, the authorised officer would only read out or permit reading of the contents of the grounds of arrest. This dual and disparate procedure to convey the grounds of arrest to the arrested person cannot be countenanced on the strength of the very same arrest order, in the aforestated prescribed format.
42. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorised officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non- compliance in this regard would entail release of
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State - (2024) 3 SCC 51. Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer.
43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji - (2024) 3 SCC 51 are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) PMLA.
44. We may also note that the grounds of arrest recorded by the authorised officer, in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, would be personal to the person who is arrested and there should, ordinarily, be no risk of sensitive material being divulged therefrom, compromising the sanctity and integrity of the investigation. In the event any such sensitive material finds mention in such grounds of arrest
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES recorded by the authorised officer, it would always be open to him to redact such sensitive portions in the document and furnish the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation.
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi - 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12108 and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938, which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that ED's investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained."
42. In Prabir Purkayastha's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after extensively referring to its earlier judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case supra, in paragraphs 20 to 22 and 29 to 31, has observed as under:
"20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala - (2000) 8 SCC 590.
"7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens."
Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES
22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.
29. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the 'grounds' of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.
30. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non- compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.
31. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant-accused is noted to be rejected."
43. From a reading of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayasta's case supra, it is very clear that post Pankaj Bansal's case i.e., from 03.10.2023, the requirement of serving the grounds of arrest on the accused immediately after his arrest as provided under Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES mandatory and failure to comply the said requirement would entitle the accused for bail.
44. In the case of RAM KISHOR ARORA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - (2024)7 SCC 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue about service of grounds of arrest on the accued immediately after their arrest, and in paragraphs 16 & 22, it is observed as under:
"16. In view of the aforestated proposition of law propounded by the Constitution Benches, there remains no shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that Section 19(1) PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said provision is also compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, any observation made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary having already examined in detail the constitutional validity of Section 19 PMLA on the touchstone of
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES Article 22(1) and upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date.
22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money- laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India."
45. In the present case, accused nos.1, 2, 11, 12 & 14 were arrested on 11.06.2024 and accused nos.6 & 7 were arrested on 14.06.2024. Perusal of the order sheet of the committal
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES court would go to show that no mention is made in the order sheet about service of memo of grounds of arrest on the aforesaid accused immediately after their arrest. All that is mentioned in the order sheer is about service of check list, arrest memo, arrest intimation and inspection memo. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, the memo of grounds of arrest were served much after the accused were arrested and the same was not served immediately after their arrest. Perusal of the memo of grounds of arrest of accused no.11 who was arrested on 11.06.2024 would go to show that the same is signed by CW-79 - Madhusudhan, whose statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC was recorded only on 15.06.2024. In the said statement, he has not stated anything about he being present at the time of arrest of the accused person or about he signing the memo of grounds of arrest.
46. The memo of grounds of arrest of accused no.12 dated 11.06.2024 has been signed by CW-76 - Kiran who is the alleged eye-witness to the incident in question. The statement of CW-76 under Section 161 of Cr.PC was recorded on 15.06.2024 and his statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded on 22.06.2024. This witness has also not stated
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES anywhere about he signing the memo of grounds of arrest on 11.06.2024 or about his presence at the time of arrest of accused no.12 on 11.06.2024.
47. The memo of grounds of arrest of accused nos.1 & 14 has been signed by CW-73 - Nagesh and his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC has been recorded on 14.06.2024. Even this witness has not stated anything about he being present on 11.06.2024 when accused nos.1 & 14 were arrested nor has he stated about he signing the memo of grounds of arrest.
48. If the contention of the prosecution that memo of grounds of arrest were served on the accused immediately after their arrest is accepted, then the question arises as to why there was inordinate delay in recording the statement of these witnesses, more so the statement of prime eye-witness CW-76 - Kiran. Since the witnesses during the course of their statement have not stated anything about they being present at the time of arrest of the accused persons, or about they signing the memo of grounds of arrest, a serious doubt arises with regard to the contention put forward by the prosecution that memo of grounds of arrest were served on the accused
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES immediately after the arrest, more so because service of the memo of grounds of arrest is also not reflected in the order sheet of the Trial Court. Since service of memo of grounds of arrest on the accused immediately after their arrest is mandatory from 03.10.2023 onwards, non-compliance of the same entitles the accused for bail.
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal's case supra and Prabir Purkayasta's case, has categorically held that grounds of arrest needs to be served on the accused in writing immediately after his arrest, conveying to the arrested accused of the basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. In Prabir Purkayasta's case supra, it has been observed that grounds of arrest would be required to contain all such details in the hand of the Investigation Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.
50. In the case on hand, the accused persons are arrested on different dates. However, the grounds of arrest served on all of them are similar and it is a cyclostyled copy. Perusal of the
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES same would clearly go to show that the same does not comply the requirement of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 48 of Prabir Purkayasta's case, wherein it has been observed that grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the reasons of arrest which are general in nature. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that prosecution has failed to comply the requirement of Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as held in Pankaj Bansal's case supra and Prabir Purkayasta's case supra.
51. In the case of MANISH SISODIA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1920, at paragraph 53, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception."
52. Some of the factors which the Court requires to take into consideration while considering the bail application of the accused are,
(i) Seriousness and gravity of the crime;
(ii) Specific role of the accused in the crime;
(iii) Criminal antecedents of the accused;
(iv) Probability of the accused tampering with the evidence of charge sheet witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of the accused committing similar offences; and
(vi) Possibility of the accused fleeing away from justice and not available for trial.
53. The petitioners in these petitions do not have serious criminal antecedents. They are all persons with deep roots in the society. Petitioners are in custody for the last six months and the prosecution, in all has cited 262 charge sheet witnesses
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES and 587 documents are cited in 13 volumes along with the charge sheet. Therefore, chances of the trial being completed in the near future is very remote. If the aforesaid factors are appreciated in the background of the judgments referred to above and the brief analysis of the material on record, I am of the opinion that petitioners' prayer for grant of regular bail requires to be answered affirmatively on the merits of the case and also on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest on the accused immediately after their arrest.
54. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal's case supra and Prabir Purkayasta's case supra, service of memo of grounds of arrest on the arrested accused immediately after their arrest is mandatory requirement of law for all offences post 03.10.2023 onwards, and therefore, there is an urgent need to update the arrest memo forms to ensure effective compliance of Section 50(1) of Cr.PC (corresponding provision under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Director General of Police, State of Karnataka, shall therefore take necessary steps forthwith prescribing a uniform format for communicating grounds of arrest in writing to the person
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES arrested, which shall include all basic facts of the case leading to the arrest, and the copy of such memo of grounds of arrest as communicated to the arrested person shall be enclosed along with the remand report when filed before the Magistrate seeking remand. The Magistrates and Judges in the District Judiciary who exercise powers of remand shall record their satisfaction of compliance, or otherwise, of the requirement mandated under Section 50(1) of Cr.PC (Corresponding provision under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, without fail.
55. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to take necessary steps to circulate the copy of this order to all the Magistrates/Judges in the District Judiciary in the State of Karnataka, and also to the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka, for effective compliance.
56. For all the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following order:
57. The petitions are allowed. The petitioners/accused nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 & 14 are directed to be enlarged on bail Crime No.250/2024 registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station,
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51482 CRL.P No. 11096 of 2024 & SIX CONNECTED CASES Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 34 IPC, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
b) The petitioners shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts their appearance for valid reasons;
c) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
d) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future;
e) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against them is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK