Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar A Alias Kalar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3195 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3210 OF 2025, 4969 OF 2025
IN CRL. P. No.3195/2025:
BETWEEN:
MOHAN V
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O VENKATESH MURTHY
R/AT WARD NO.27, MAGADI
ROAD, KAYARADODDI
RAMANAGARAM TOWN
RAMANAGARAM - 57151.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH CHOTA J, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Digitally PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S
signed by REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
NANDINI M S
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
Location:
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA 2 . SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA
W/O LATE MAHESH
AGED 27 YEARS
LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM
NEAR PILEKAMMA TEMPLE
MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP A/W SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED) -2- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE, PARAPPANAAGRAHARA POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGLAORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, SEC. 120B, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212 AND 149 OF IPC, SEC. 3(2)(v, 3(2)(va) OF SC / ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND EC. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) AND 4 OF THE KARNAAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000 (KCOCA).
IN CRL.P NO.3210/2025:
BETWEEN:
J. NAGARAJ @ WILSON GARDEN NAGA S/O JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.101, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR ADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 030.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI SNADESH CHOUTA J, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA W/O LATE MAHESH AGED 27 YEARS LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM NEAR PILEKAMMA TEMPLE MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJEGE, ADDL. SPP A/W SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP) -3- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, SEC. 120B, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212 AND 149 OF IPC, SEC. 3(2)(v, 3(2)(va) OF SC / ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND EC. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) AND 4 OF THE KARNAAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000 (KCOCA).
IN CRL.P NO.4969/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEEN KUMAR A @ KALAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O ANNAYAPPA R/AT C/O CHAYA KUMARI BEHIND SANDHYA THEATRE MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068 PARMANENT ADDRESS KELAMANGALA G.B. KATTE TAMILNADU - 635 113.
2. GOKUL S/O GOPI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.13/36, 3RD CROSS NEAR BADAVARA SANGHA NEAR MARY IMACULATE SCHOOL LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 034.
3. SURESH BABU B S/O VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A NO.11, BALAGERE VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR S J OINNACLE APARTMENTS VARTHUR, BENGALURU - 560 087.
4. DINESH ALIS DIO DINI S/O ARJUN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS -4- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR R/A NO.451, 8TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, VIJAYA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 026.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA W/O LATE MAHESH AGED 27 YEARS LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM NEAR PILERAMMA TEMPLE MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJEGE, ADDL. SPP A/W SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC(FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFEENCE P/U/S 25(1AA),25,(1B)(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND SEC.120(B), 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v),3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.3(1)(i),3(2),3(3),3(4) AND 4 OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT 2000 (KCOCA).
THESE PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused nos.1, 2, 9, 11, 14 & 16 in Spl.CC.No.226/2024 pending before the Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.345/2023 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, Sections 120B, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212, 149 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 4 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (for short, 'KCOCA'), are before this Court in these three petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.345/2023 was registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1AA), 25(1B)(B) of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR Arms Act, 1959, Sections 341, 427, 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 149 of IPC, against Wilson Garden Naga (accused no.1) and others based on the first information dated 04.08.2023 received from Meghana Eregowda who is the wife of deceased Mahesh. During the course of investigation of the case, accused nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 18.08.2023 and accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 were arrested on 06.08.2023. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against 27 persons and petitioners herein are arrayed as accused nos.1, 2, 9, 11, 14 & 16 in the charge sheet. Their bail applications filed before the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.226/2024 were rejected, and therefore, they are before this Court in these three petitions.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused nos.1 & 2 submits that accused nos.17 to 27 have been enlarged on bail in the present case. Accused nos.3 to 16 are the assailants and the allegation against accused nos.1 & 2 is about conspiracy to murder deceased Mahesh. Accused nos.1 &
2 have been acquitted in all the criminal cases registered against them except in one case which is registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR IPC and the provisions of the KCOCA. The prosecution has failed to produce any material against accused nos.1 & 2 which would prima facie make out a case for conspiracy, motive or financing the assailants to commit the murder. The prosecution has cited 256 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and the case is still at the stage of hearing before charge. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRABHAKAR TEWARI VS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. - Crl.A.No.152/2020 disposed of on 24.01.2020, and also in the case of SADDAM HUSSAIN M.K. & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA - CRL.A.No.2717/2025 disposed of on 19.05.2025.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 submits that the said accused have not been identified by the alleged eye-witnesses to the case. Their name is not found in the FIR. Accused nos.11 & 14 do not have any criminal antecedents and accused nos.9 & 16 who were earlier involved in another criminal case have been acquitted in the said case. Except the present case, there is no other case pending against accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16. The provisions of KCOCA cannot be invoked as against them. They are in custody -8- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR for the last nearly two years and the trial in the case is yet to commence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned SPP has opposed the petitions. He submits that accused nos.1 & 2 have a notorious background and they were involved in multiple criminal cases registered for heinous offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364A, etc. Considering that these accused persons are involved in committing organized crimes and also since the charge sheet witnesses are threatened by them, the provisions of KCOCA has been invoked against them in the present case. In most of the earlier criminal cases registered against them, they have been acquitted for the reason that charge sheet witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution during the course of investigation has produced material which prima facie shows that accused nos.1 & 2 were in contact with the other accused persons and they had provided vehicles and financial assistance to the assailants. Because of the rivalry between two gangs, multiple murders have taken place and the deceased is one of the victims of the rivalry between two gangs. In the event the accused are enlarged on bail, the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR chances of they committing similar offences and also threatening the material charge sheet witnesses cannot be ruled out. There are eye-witnesses to the incident in question who have spoken about the role of the assailants. The accused persons have confessed to their crime and the confession of the accused is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA. The weapons and blood stained clothes were seized from the assailants after their arrest and the DNA test report supports the case of the prosecution. Merely for the reason that accused persons are in custody for a period of nearly two years, their bail applications cannot be entertained having regard to the gravity of offence and also the background in which the incident in question has taken place. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petitions.
7. FIR in the present case was registered against accused nos.1, 2 and others. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 27 persons. The allegation as against accused nos.1 & 2 is about conspiring with the other accused persons to commit the murder of deceased Mahesh who was earlier a member of the gang of accused nos.1 & 2.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR According to the prosecution, Mahesh had joined hands with Linga with whom accused nos.1 & 2 had a rivalry. Linga was murdered on 08.12.2020, and in the said case, accused nos.1 & 2 were arrayed as accused. It appears that subsequently Madan who was the accomplice of accused nos.1 & 2 was murdered and in the said case Mahesh who was arrayed as accused was arrested, and therefore, accused nos.1 & 2 had conspired to commit the murder of Mahesh and in furtherance of such conspiracy, on 04.08.2023 accused nos.3 to 16 who came in two Innova Cars bearing registration Nos.KA-05-AB- 2224 and KA-51-AB-3852, intercepted the car bearing registration No.KA-05-MM-9263 in which deceased Mahesh was travelling with CW-60 & CW-67 after being released from jail, and assaulted him with deadly weapons and committed his murder. The allegation against accused nos.17 to 27 is that they conspired with the other accused persons and were informing the other accused persons about the whereabouts of Mahesh. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.17 to 27 have been enlarged on bail in the present case.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. So far as accused nos.1 & 2 are concerned, a case of strong motive has been made out by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, since Mahesh was involved in the murder of Madan who was the accomplice of accused nos.1 & 2, they had decided to eliminate him, and accordingly had conspired with the other accused persons. The prosecution has collected material to show that accused no.1 had provided vehicles to the assailants for the purpose of committing the crime and thereafter to escape from the spot of crime. Accused no.1 was involved in totally 22 criminal cases and during the last 10 years prior to the alleged date of incident, he was involved in 13 criminal cases. Accused no.2 was involved in 5 criminal cases prior to the registration of the present case against him.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused nos.1 & 2 has submitted that in all the earlier criminal cases registered against accused nos.1 & 2, they have been now acquitted and only one criminal case registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and under the provisions of the KCOCA is pending as against them.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. The material on record would go to show that accused nos.1 & 2 were involved in multiple criminal cases registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC, etc., and even the provisions of KCOCA has been invoked against them on multiple occasions. In the earlier criminal cases registered against them, they were enlarged on bail.
11. Section 22 of KCOCA provides for modified application of certain provisions of the Code, which reads as under:
"22. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law, every offence punishable under this Act, shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code and "Cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall be constructed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modifications that, in sub-section (2), -
(a) The references to "fifteen days" and "Sixty days"
wherever they occur, shall be constructed as references to "Thirty days" and "ninety days" respectively; (b) After the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted namely:- "Provided further that if it is not possible to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days."
(3) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on own bond, unless-
(a) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release; and
(b) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the Court that he was on bail in an offence under this Act or under any other Act on the date of the offence in question.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR (6) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on the granting of bail.
(7) The police officer seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pretrial interrogation from the judicial custody shall file a written statement explaining the reason for seeking such custody and also for the delay if any, seeking the police custody."
12. Under Section 22(4) of KCOCA, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the accused cannot be released on bail. Considering the fact that accused nos.1 & 2 are persons with criminal antecedents, merely for the reason that they have been acquitted in the earlier criminal cases registered against them, it is difficult to record a finding at this stage that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In fact, as on the date of the alleged offence, accused nos.1 & 2 were on bail in Crime No.58/2017 registered by Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 IPC, Sections 27 & 30 of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR Arms Act and Section 3 of KCOCA, and the said case is undisputedly pending as on this date. In the said case, they were on bail as on the date of the alleged incident.
13. Section 22(5) of KCOCA provides a further limitation in addition to the limitation provided under Section 22(4) of KCOCA. Section 22(5) of KCOCA states that accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the court that he was on bail in an offence under KCOCA or under any other Act on the date of the offence in question. A similar provision under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & OTHERS - (2018)13 SCC 5, and in paragraphs 62 & 64 of the said judgment, it is observed as under:
"62. Having recorded our finding in the aforesaid manner, we now proceed to decide the issue as to whether a person accused of an offence under MCOCA should be denied bail if on the date of the offence he is on bail for an offence under MCOCA or any other Act. Section 21(5) of MCOCA reads as under:
"21. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR noticed by the court that he was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question."
64. We consider that a person who is on bail after being arrested for violation of law unconnected with MCOCA, should not be denied his right to seek bail if he is arrested under MCOCA, for it cannot be said that he is a habitual offender. The provision of denying his right to seek bail, if he was arrested earlier and was on bail for commission of an offence under any other Act, suffers from the vice of unreasonable classification by placing in the same class, offences which may have nothing in common with those under MCOCA, for the purpose of denying consideration of bail. The aforesaid expression and restriction on the right of seeking bail is not even in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act and, therefore, on the face of the provisions this is an excessive restriction."
14. From a reading of the aforesaid observations in Bharat Shanti Lal Shah's case supra, it is very clear that restriction under Section 22(5) of KCOCA cannot be made applicable against a person who is on bail in a criminal case registered against him not connected with KCOCA. But such a restriction would apply to a person who was on bail in a case earlier registered against him under the provisions of KCOCA as on the date of registration of the present case.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. It is specifically contended by the learned SPP that in the event accused nos.1 & 2 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The said apprehension also cannot be ruled out considering the notorious background of accused nos.1 & 2 and also the fact that in majority of criminal cases registered against them, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
16. In Prabhakar Tewari's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely for the reason that there are other criminal cases pending against an accused, the same cannot be a ground to deny him bail. The said principle has been followed by this Court in the case of JAGAN @ JAGANNATH VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA -
Crl.P.No.4278/2023 disposed of on 26.09.2023.
17. In Prabhakar Tewari's case supra, the provisions of special enactment was not invoked and only the offences punishable under the IPC were invoked as against the accused therein. So far as the present case is concerned, the offences punishable under the provisions of the KCOCA has been
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR invoked against the accused. As on the date of registration of the present FIR against accused nos.1 & 2, a case in Crime No.58/2017 registered invoking the provisions of KCOCA was pending against them and they were enlarged on bail in the said case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in view of restrictions found in Sections 22(4) & 22(5) of KCOCA, the prayer made by accused nos.1 & 2 for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained.
18. In so far as accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 are concerned, they allegedly had arrived at the spot of crime along with other assailants in two Innova cars provided to them by accused no.1 and had assaulted deceased Mahesh with deadly weapons and committed his murder. The incident in question had taken place at about 9.30 p.m. on 04.08.2023 when Mahesh was returning from jail after he was released on bail in the criminal case registered against him for committing the murder of Madan. The vehicle in which Mahesh was travelling with his friends CW- 60 & CW-67 was intercepted by assailants-accused nos.3 to 16 and when Mahesh got down from his vehicle and tried to escape, the assailants who were armed with deadly weapons
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR assaulted him and committed his murder. The present crime was committed in a public place where many vehicles had stopped near a traffic signal light. Therefore, the public order was at threat due to the act committed by the accused. This goes to show that accused in this case have no regard or respect to rule of law.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWAD VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
- 2024 INSC 968, in paragraph 15, has observed as under:
"15. As to whether a case would amount to threat to the public order or as to whether it would be such which can be dealt with by the ordinary machinery in exercise of its powers of maintaining law and order would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, if somebody commits a brutal murder within the four corners of a house, it will not be amounting to a threat to the public order. As against this, if a person in a public space where a number of people are present creates a ruckus by his behaviour and continues with such activities, in a manner to create a terror in the minds of the public at large, it would amount to a threat to public order."
20. The weapons used by the assailants were subsequently recovered during the course of investigation. The weapons
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR which were recovered at the instance of accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 had blood stains on it and DNA test report would go to show that the said blood stains matched with the DNA of the deceased. After the incident, accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 escaped with the other assailants in the vehicle they had arrived and all the assailants stayed in a private accommodation and in the CCTV footage of the said place which is collected by the Investigation Officer, the presence of accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 along with other assailants is also found.
21. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are in custody for the last nearly two years and the trial in the case is yet to commence and accordingly considering the period of petitioners incarceration, they are entitled to be released on bail. In support of the said argument, they have placed reliance on the judgment in Saddam Hussain's case supra.
22. In Saddam Hussain's case supra, appellant nos.1 & 2 had undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years 25 days and appellant no.3 had undergone incarceration for a period of two
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR years and six months and the only antecedent against them was a case registered under Section 151 of Cr.PC. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, they are in custody for nearly two years and considering the gravity of the offences and the manner in which it is committed, I am of the opinion that their prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground of their incarceration cannot be entertained at this stage.
23. In the case of NEERU YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2016)5 SCC 422, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 to 15, has observed as under:
"13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
14. E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of US Court of Appeals had to state thus:
"In an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty itself is the product of restraints; it is inherently a composite of restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR Freedom, I say, is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints. There is no liberty without order. There is no order without systematised restraint. Restraints are the substance without which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The great problem of the democratic process is not to strip men of restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the maximum development of man's capabilities, not in a massive globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realisation, of each separate human mind, soul and body; not in mute, motionless meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity."
15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27284 CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025 HC-KAR law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."
24. If the background of the accused persons and the nature of allegations found against the accused are considered, I am of the opinion that there is potential threat to the witnesses in the present case. CWs-59 to 67 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident in question and they are yet to be examined before the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, considering the totality of allegations made against the accused, gravity of offence, the nature of evidence and also the antecedents of the accused persons, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the prayer made by the accused for grant of regular bail cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to renew their bail application before the Trial Court in the event trial is not commenced within a reasonable period.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK