Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj @ Smart Naga vs The State on 18 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200797/2022
Between:
Nagaraj @ Smart Nagu S/o Venkatesh Yadav,
Age: 25 years, Occ: Private Work,
R/o: Village Ramlewadi, Tq: Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar-585327.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)
And:
The State through Chowk Police Station
Now representing by Addl. SPP,
HCKB at Kalaburagi.
... Respondent
(By Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, AGA)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail, Crime
No.46/2017 of Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341,
326, 109, 120(B), 393, 307, 201 & 212 r/w Section 149
IPC & Sections 2(d)(e) (f) & 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) & 3(5) of
KCOCA Act, pending on the file of Prl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge at Kalaburagi in Spl. Case (KCOCA) No.01/2017, in
view of the reasons stated above.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.46/2017 of Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi District, pending in Special Case (KCOCA) No.1/2017 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 109, 120(B), 393, 307, 201 & 212 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 2(d)(e)(f) & 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) & 3(5) of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (for short 'KCOCA Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Ramesh.
2. Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 and 4 others. However, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 17, for the above said offences. After filing of the charge sheet in the year 2017, petitioner and accused No.4 have approached this Court for grant of bail by filing Criminal Petition No.200449/2019. The said petition came to be allowed subject to conditions vide order dated 13.06.2019. However, the prosecution filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking to cancel the bail granted by this court. The said application came to be allowed and bail granted in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4 was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended on 18.02.2020. Accused Nos.2 and 4 again approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.200636/2020. However, the present petitioner has not pressed the petition. But the petition filed by 4 accused No.4 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020. Therefore, the petitioner continued to be in prison.
4. Learned counsel submits that no progress is made in the case that is pending before the Trial Court in Special Case (KCOCA) No.1/2017. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though initially FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 and others, during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner along with other accused are involved in the commission of 5 the offences as stated above. Clinching materials were collected by the Investigating Officer and provisions of the KCOCA Act is also invoked. However, petition in Criminal Petition No.200449/2019 was filed before the Court. It was felt that stringent conditions could be imposed against accused Nos.2 and 4 and they may be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, petition came to be allowed vide order dated 13.06.2019 and stringent conditions were imposed against accused Nos.2 and 4. Inspite of that, the petitioner had not complied with the conditions imposed by this Court to appear before the jurisdictional police regularly, not to leave the municipal limits and to appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing. Therefore, the bail granted in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled. When the petition in Criminal Petition No.200636/2020 was filed before this Court, the petitioner has not pressed the petition and therefore, he is in judicial custody.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the provisions of the KCOCA Act is 6 invoked against the petitioner. The petitioner is involved in as many as 5 other cases i.e., Crime No.232/2013 of University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC; Crime No.27/2014 of Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 504, 506, 302 of IPC; Crime No.46/2017 of Chowk Police Station, for the offences punishable under the previsions of the KCOCA Act; Crime No.31/2013 of University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 402 of IPC and Crime No.63/2013 of Roza Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will threaten the prosecution witnesses not to depose before the Court. The petitioner and other accused have become headache to the civilized society.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted that even though bail was granted in favour of 7 accused No.4, the prosecution has already filed a petition seeking to cancel the bail. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is
entitled for grant of bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
9. As per the charge sheet, serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. As many as 249 witnesses are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. It is not in dispute that once the petitioner was granted bail, subject to conditions. Subsequently, the same was cancelled as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the 8 petitioner has violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. Even though it is stated that accused No.4 was granted bail subsequently, it is the specific contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that an application seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of accused No.4 is already filed.
10. It is stated that provisions of the KCOCA Act are invoked. As per the objections statement, the petitioner is involved in the commission of number of similar cases and is creating fear psychosis in the society. The petitioner was once enlarged on bail by this Court subject to stringent conditions, but he has not chosen to comply with the conditions. Even though he has filed the petition seeking grant of bail, the same was withdrawn for the reasons best known to him. It is stated that Special Case pending before the Special Court is of the year 2017. It is brought to the notice of the Court that one or the other accused is remaining absent and thus, dragging on the matter. The learned Additional Government Advocate 9 submits that the prosecution is filing application for cancellation of bail of all such accused who are continuously remaining absent before the Trial Court and hampering the trial. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, conduct of the petitioner-accused and also taking into consideration the criminal antecedents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB* Ct: SMP