Karnataka High Court
K Channa Basappa Alias Channa Basav S/O K ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102268 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
K. CHANNA BASA PPA @ CHANNA
BASAV S/ O K . S OMAPPA ,
AGE: 26 YEARS ,
OCC: AGRICULT URIST,
R/O. HALA GAPURA VILLA GE,
TQ: H. B. HALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-560040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.C.JNA NAYYA SWAMI, AD VOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH H. B. HALLI PS ,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PET ITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAI L IN CRIME
NO.107/ 2022 REGISTERED BY H.B. HALLI POLI CE ST ATION,
FOR THE OFFEN CES U/S EC.363, 364A OF IPC PENDING
INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL IN SO FOR AS THIS PETIT IONER
IS CON CERNED , I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.107/2022, registered by H.B.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Krishnamurthy S/o Narayanaswami aged 71 years has filed complaint stating that he is residing with his son Raghavendra and two granddaughters and the victim boy aged 5 years. It is further stated that on 03.07.2022, when he was in the house at 3:00 p.m, his son and daughter-in-law came and told him that their son Aadvik had gone to play in the front yard, but he did not returned. Thereafter, they 3 searched for him but could not trace out. It is further stated that at about 4:30p.m, his son received a phone call on his mobile phone bearing No.8722935282, from a mobile phone No.9886414562, wherein a person told him that his son is kidnapped and for his safe release he demanded a ransom of Rs.15,00,000/- and further told that if the said amount is not paid, they will sent his son to some other place in a lorry. When the complainant's son told that he is not having that much of amount, immediately the said amount is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- and asked him to come along with his wife to the place where he suggests and cautioned him not to inform the police, else they will not see their son. The said complaint came to be registered against the unknown person in Crime No.107/2022 of H.B.Halli Police Station for the aforesaid offences.
4
The police conducted investigation. During the investigation, they collected call records and the SIM which is used to call the son of the complainant was standing in the name of one Kumarappa and on inquiry by the police, he narrated that on 01.07.2022, he submitted his Adhar Card and brought the SIM card from accused No.6-Ravi and on the same day, two SIMs were activated in the name of Kumarappa. The police have interrogated accused No.6 and he revealed that on 01.07.2022, he activated two SIMs in the name of Kumarappa and one SIM has been given to Kumarappa and he kept another SIM with him. After that, accused No.2 approached accused No.6 and narrated that accused No.1 is planning to make kidnap of a minor child and he required a SIM. Accused No.6 gave that SIM, which is activated in the name of Kumarappa to accused No.1. Accused No.1 took the boy from front yard of the house of complainant and handed over 5 the boy to accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused No.2 made conversation with son of the complainant through the mobile phone bearing No.9886414562. The police during investigation traced out the victim boy. The petitioner-accused No.2 came to be arrested on 04.07.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.Petition.No.5449/2022, seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) by order dated 28.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is no active role of this petitioner in commission of the alleged 6 crime. The victim child has been safely secured by the police and there is no torture to the child. This petitioner is alleged to have made a phone call to the son of the complainant at the instance of accused No.1 and demanded ransom for release of the victim boy. The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of voluntary statement. It is his further submission that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.07.2022 and the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 10 years and petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that, the matter is still under investigation and offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 10 years. On perusal of the remand application it clearly shows the involvement of this 7 petitioner in the alleged kidnap of a victim boy for ransom. The investigating officer has already recorded the statement of victim boy and his statement is also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the Magistrate. It is his further submission that this petitioner is a mastermind for planning of kidnap of the victim boy for ransom. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State, this Court has gone through the F.I.R, complaint, remand application and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. 8
7. As per the accusation in the investigation papers/remand yaadi shows that, accused No.1 has kidnapped the victim boy for ransom and this petitioner-accused No.2 has made a phone call to the mobile phone of the son of complainant and demanded ransom of Rs.15,00,000/- and thereafter it was reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-. The said mobile phone and the bike used for kidnapping the victim boy has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner-accused No.2 under Mahazar. The said aspect itself goes to show the involvement of this petitioner in kidnapping of a boy for ransom. What is the real role of this petitioner-accused No.2 is required to be ascertained after investigation and filing of the final report. The offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous, punishable with imprisonment for 10 years. As the investigation is in progress at this stage, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
9
8. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.
9. The petitioner is at liberty to file bail application before the Sessions Court after filing the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM