Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Chandra Aras vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 3432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101029 OF 2019
BETWEEN
JAGADISH CHANDRA ARAS
S/O SUBRAMANYA ARAS,
(AS PER CHARGE-
JAGADISH CHANDRA URAS,
S/O SUBRAMANYA URAS),
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
R/O: DODDAMMA TEMPLE NEXT ROAD,
MANORAYANAPALYA, RT NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560032. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI, ANKOLA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10
ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.129/2014 (CRIME NO.245/2013
OF ANKOLA POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE) AT
BELAGAVI, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 3(4) & 3(2) OF THE
CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019
:2:
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000
AND SEC. 120-B OF THE IPC (AS PER CHARGE FRAMED ON
03.11.2018).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.10 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in connection with Crime No.245/2013 of Ankola Police Station (S.C. No.129/2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge & (KCOCA Spl. Judge), Belagavi) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(4) and 3(2) of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (for short 'KCOCA Act') and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :3:
3. The brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that, complainant is working since 13 years as Police Constable at Karwar District Police. The higher officials appointed the complainant as Gunman from September to Sri Ramachandra Narayan Naik (hereinafter referred as 'R.N.Naik' for brevity) aged about 58 years, who is a businessman who was residing in K.C.Road Palace, Ankola. The 'R.N.Naik' would leave the house and come back around 1.30 to have the lunch and around 4-6 he would go out. During the said time complainant use to accompany as a Gunman and the Department had provided 9 mm pistol and 10 bullets. On 21.12.2013 as usual morning around 10.00 a.m. deceased 'R.N.Naik' came out of the house along with the complainant and CW74 in his Chevrolet Caption Car and they went to attend the program in Urdu School. When the function was over, the deceased left at about 11.30 a.m. to his bank namely Dwaraka Souharda Credit Co-op. Bank. CW74 the driver and the complainant went outside the bank. At about 1.30 after finishing his work deceased CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :4: sat in his car to go to the home for lunch. During that time two buses came in opposite direction creating traffic jam. Due to the same, the complainant was not able to sit in the car. Suddenly one person came back on the right side of the car and fired from his pistol on 'R.N.Naik.' At that time the complainant also fired from his pistol towards that person, but he escaped and ran towards the bus stand. At that time three persons were waiting near Parijata Hotel in Maruti Omni Car and they tried to pull that person into the Maruti Omni Car. Complainant fired again from his pistol and hearing the sound of firing all the three persons ran away from the spot. The complainant chased the person who fired 'R.N.Naik' at the entrance of Ankola Bus Stand and that man also fired back at the complainant. Complainant escaped that fire and fell down and for self-defence complainant also fired from his pistol. Due to the shot that man fell down. Complainant sent the man along with the police to the hospital and thereafter complainant came near 'R.N.Naik's car. During that time the car driver and public shifted the CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :5: injured to Arya Medical Hospital. The complainant went and saw 'R.N.Naik' who sustained bleeding injury on the right side chest below the neck. Doctor also confirmed that due to bullet shot the victim succumbed to death. Thereafter the complainant went and saw the spot the van still there in the bus stop. The Maruti Omni Car bearing No.CT-7767, the person who fired at 'R.N.Naik' had also succumbed to death in the hospital due to 9 mm shot. Complainant after verifying his driving licence came to know that the said persons name was Vivek Upadhyaiah son of Vijaya Kumar Prayak, r/at Kithapura, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Deceased Vivek Upadhyaiah and three persons had conspired and had murdered 'R.N.Naik' with the pistol and also obstructed to do the duty. Thereafter complainant filed the complaint against the deceased and three others. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered and during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has conducted spot mahazar and arrayed the petitioners as accused No.10 and 16 respectively along with other accused persons.
CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :6:
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.10 that the petitioner/accused No.10 has been filing successive bail applications before this Court and this Court has rejected the said bail applications, out of which some bail petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before the Court below. It is his further contention that now, a charge has been framed on 03.11.2017, as per which the petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences under Section 3 and 120B of IPC. It is his further contention that there is no specific averments to show that he has co-ordinated with other accused persons and he was member of the organized crime; without there being any specific averments, the petitioner/accused cannot be considered to be a member of the organized crime. It is his further contention that the petitioner/accused was apprehended on 17.03.2014 and charge sheet was filed on 14.06.2014 and till today he is in custody for a period of more than five years; as per Sections 3 and 120B of IPC and other provisions of the KCOCA Act, the minimum CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :7: punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is five years and it may be extended to imprisonment for life; petitioner/accused has already undergone the minimum punishment which is prescribed under the said Act. Under such circumstances, the petitioner/accused is entitled to be released on bail. It is his further contention that Section 2(a) of the KCOCA Act defines 'abetment' or 'abet' that included communication or association with any person with knowledge or having reason to believe that such person is engaged in associating in any manner in organized crime syndicate. In the instant case, no such material has been produced to substantiate the said fact. As per Section 3(2) that whoever conspires or facilitates for commission of organized crime and in that light he is liable to be punished, but as could be seen from the charge sheet material, the only allegation which has been made as against the petitioner/accused is that he has transferred the amount in the names of the remaining accused persons, however, the said transfers have not been made physically, but through bank transactions and CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :8: the amounts have been transferred to the account holders. It is the further contention that in the earlier bail applications, it was contended that the petitioner/accused is also involved in other cases, but only one case was pending against him in S.C. No.400/2015 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, and in the said case, the petitioner/accused has been acquitted by judgment dated 03.04.2018. It is his further contention that when once the material placed and the charge framed clearly go to show that he is not involved in the commission of heinous offence under Section 302, and the charge has been framed only for the offences under Section 3 and 120B of IPC, taking into consideration the same and by imposing any condition, the petitioner/accused may be ordered to be released on bail. It is his further submission that many more witnesses are still to be examined by the prosecution; the trial may take some more time and if the accused is detained in custody, the accused will be deprived of his rights and will have to languish in jail without there being any material as against him. On these CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 :9: grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State files objections. The same is taken on record.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused No.10, along with other accused persons, being a member of the organized crime syndicate actually participated in the alleged crime. It is his further submission that accused No.9 is the kingpin and, on his instructions, he has played a vital role in distribution of the money for the purpose of purchasing the vehicles and arms from other accused persons. He further submitted that there is ample material to show that the present petitioner has distributed the money and a pistol has also been seized at the instance of the petitioner/accused. It is his further contention that accused Nos.13, 14, and 15 are still absconding and that CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 : 10 : the accused/petitioner facilitated accused No.9 and other persons; the recovery has been made at the instance of the present petitioner/accused. It is his further contention that he has worked as a member of organized crime syndicate and he has also confessed having involved in the alleged crime, and such confession is admissible as per Section 19 of the said Act. It is his further contention that already C.Ws.1 and 74 have been examined and the material witnesses who spoke about the transaction of the petitioner/accused have to be examined before the Court below and as such, at this juncture, if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may also threaten the witnesses; he is a highly influential person and is also having criminal background. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 : 11 :
8. As could be seen from the records, the present petitioner/accused No.10 had filed successive bail applications and those applications have been dismissed by this Court considering the merits of the case. Now, the changed circumstances which have been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.10 is that the charge sheet has been filed and in the said charge sheet he has been charged under Sections 3 and 120 B of IPC, but as could be seen from Section 3 of the KCOCA Act, it prescribes that if any person being a member of the organized crime syndicate commits an organized crime, he is liable to be punished. When the petitioner/accused No.1 has been included being the member of the organized crime syndicate, the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the entire case and the material produced on record, not only in respect of the present petitioner/accused No.10 but also the other accused persons. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the material which has been produced in this petition, it is the case of the prosecution that petitioner/accused No.10 CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 : 12 : has played a vital role in distributing the money, as directed by accused No.9 in the said crime, for the purpose of commission of the offence by the other members of the organized crime syndicate. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that it is accused No.9, who is the kingpin of the said organized crime syndicate and through whom, the present petitioner/accused No.10 has acted and committed the offence. The material produced also clearly goes to show that there were transactions, communications and deliberations with accused No.9 and the said material goes to show that there was a link with accused No.9; it is also brought to the notice of this Court that accused Nos.13, 14 and 15 are still absconding and are not available for the purpose of trial, and under such circumstances, I feel that if the petitioner/accused No.10 is enlarged on bail there is a likelihood that the petitioner/accused No.10 may also abscond and may not be available for trial.
9. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the minimum punishment for the CRL.P. NO.101029 OF 2019 : 13 : said offence is five years and the petitioner/accused No.10 has already completed five years languishing in jail and as such he may be released on bail, when he is a member of the organized crime syndicate and is involved in a serious offence which is at the stage of trial, I feel that the said contention will not be a good ground to release the petitioner/accused No.10 on bail that too when accused is involved in KCOCA Act, the bank transactions have been done and recovery has also been done at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.10 and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may even threaten the witnesses. Looking from any angle the petitioner/accused No.10 has not made out any good ground to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the bail petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms