Karnataka High Court
Shashi Kumar R vs State By on 19 June, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799
CRL.A No. 302 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 302 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 396 OF 2024
IN CRL.A.No.302/2024:
BETWEEN:
PAVAN KUMAR
S/O DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT No. 104, 1ST MAIN
1ST CROSS, SHAMPURA
BANGALORE - 560 045.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH 1. STATE BY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
DJ HALLI, POLICE STAITON
(REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PIN CODE - 560 001.
2. SRI PREM J
S/O LATE JAISHEELAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
# 4, 1ST CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR
R T NAGAR POST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799
CRL.A No. 302 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024
BANGALORE
PIN CODE - 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI L MALLESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023
BY DISMISSING THE SATUTORY BAIL APPLICATION OF THE
APPELLANT IN CR.No.162/2023 REGISTERED BY D.J. HALLI
POLICE STATION AND ORDER THE APPELLANT TO BE
ENLARGED ON SATUTORY BAIL IN CR.No.162/2023
REGISTERED BY D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION REGISTERED IN
XI ACMM BANGALORE WHICH NOW PENDING BEFORE THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 OF THE KCOCA ACT, 2000 AND SECTION 3(2)(V)
OF THE SC/ST ACT AND ETC.,
IN CRL.A.No.396/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SHASHI KUMAR R
S/O LATE RAMESH N
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
#2/3, 4TH CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK
R T NAGAR POST
BANGLAORE - 560 032.
2. SHANKAR
S/O SELVA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT #1138, 3RD CROSS
CHOWDIAH BLOCK
NEAR MAMATHA SCHOOL
MANJUNATH LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 032.
3. RAVI @ PALLA RAVI
S/O SELVA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799
CRL.A No. 302 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT #128, 3RD CROSS
CHOWDIAH BLOCK
NEAR MAMATHA SCHOOL
MANJUNATH LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 032.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
DJ HALLI, POLICE STAITON
(REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PIN CODE - 560 001.
2.SRI PREM J
S/O LATE JAISHEELAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
# 4, 1ST CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE
PIN CODE - 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN CR.No.162/2023 REGISTERED BY D.J. HALLI
POLICE STATION AND ORDER THE APPELLANTS TO BE
ENLARGED ON SATUTORY BAIL IN CR.No.162/2023
REGISTERED BY D.J. HALLI POLICE STATION REGISTERED IN
XI ACMM BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF
IPC, SECTION 3 OF THE KCOCA ACT, 2000 AND SECTION
3(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST ACT AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799
CRL.A No. 302 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants in both matters.
2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.302/2024 is accused No.5 and appellants in Crl.A.No.396/2024 are accused Nos.6, 8 and 9.
3. The impugned orders in both appeals are passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. The order impugned in both the appeals are passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on the applications filed by the appellants under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"). The said applications are filed on the ground that the order dated 29.09.2023 allowing the applications filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 22(2)(b) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the KCOC Act") has not been -5- NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024 passed in the presence of the appellants and they have not been notified in the said applications. The said applications of the appellants are considered under the provisions of the KCOC Act and the orders are passed by the Special Court ie., the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru which has been established under Section 5 of the KCOC Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that one of the offence alleged against the appellants is under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act") and therefore, the Court which has passed the impugned orders is deemed to be a Special Court under the SC/ST Act and therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act is maintainable.
6. The grounds urged in the applications on which the impugned orders have been passed is under the provisions of the KCOC Act. Section 22 of the KCOC Act reads thus; -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024 "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 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 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024 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.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024 (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."
7. The Special Public Prosecutor had filed application under Section 22(2)(b) of the KCOC Act, seeking extension of the period and the Court has passed the order on the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor on 29.09.2023 allowing the said application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor. The contention of the appellants before the Trial Court was that the said application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time under Section 22(2)(b) of the KCOC Act has not been notified to them and the order was passed in their absence. On that ground, they filed an application -9- NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024 under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C, seeking statutory bail. While passing the impugned order on the application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C by the appellants - accused, the Trial Court has considered the provisions of KCOC Act and passed the impugned order. The Trial Court has not exercised its powers under any of the provisions of SC/ST Act. Therefore, the appeal filed under Section 14(2)(A) of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable as it is not passed by the Special Court invoking any of the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that even though Section 12 of the KCOC Act provides for filing of the appeal, but the orders which can be challenged by way of an appeal under the above provision are the final orders and not being an interlocutory order of the Special Court. If any appeal is not provided as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant under the provisions of KCOC Act, then the remedy available to him is under Cr.P.C, challenging the impugned order.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21799 CRL.A No. 302 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 396 of 2024
9. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the appellants are not maintainable. Hence, they are dismissed as not maintainable.
10. The appellants are at liberty to initiate an appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE DSP,GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32