Karnataka High Court
Tejpal R Kukyan @ Munna vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2381
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3378 OF 2020
BETWEEN
Tejpal R Kukyan @ Munna,
S/o. Ravindra Poojari,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at Chitrapu Village,
Mangaluru Taluk,
D.K.District-575012.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka by
Mulki Police Station,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. B.J.Rohith, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.155/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.283/2018) of Mulki Police
Station, D.K. District, for the offence punishable under
Sections 447, 506, 387 and 427 read with 34 of IPC and
Section 3, 5(1)(A), 5(2), and 27 of Indian Arms Act and
Section 3 of KCOCA Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.155/2017 registered by the respondent-police in relation to offences punishable under Sections 447, 506, 387 and 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3, 5(1)(a), 5(2), and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
3. The first informant is one M.Nagaraj. He made a report to the police on 23.12.2017 that when he was in his house, at about 8.50pm, somebody shot at the window glass panel. He came out of the house and saw a person shooting at his car and then left the place. He stated that 3 years ago he had received a call from Ravi Poojari and then about a a week prior to the date of incident, he had received three calls. He suspected that some underworld gang might have made calls for the purpose of extorting money from him. 3
4. Investigation has been completed. In the charge sheet it is stated that this petitioner was a member of organized crime syndicate and used to contact frequently accused No.3 over phone besides giving information to accused No.1. It is stated that he is involved in two more cases.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that actually two FIRs were registered against the unknown person and after the arrest of the petitioner in this case, he came to be implicated in those two cases. The provisions of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 have been wrongly invoked against the petitioner. He further refers to the voluntary statement said to have been obtained from the petitioner to argue that a plain reading of the statement does not indicate that actually he was involved in commission of any offences. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 2 years 10 months. In these circumstances, petitioner may be released on bail.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader argues that the petitioner was actually passing on information to 4 accused No.1 and he was in regular contact with accused No.3. Accused No.3 wanted to extort money from the first informant. The petitioner was providing information to other accused about the movements of the first informant. His confession statement discloses his actual involvement. Therefore KCOCA Act is applicable. There are no grounds to grant bail.
7. Section 19 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 shows that confession statement given by an accused is admissible not withstanding Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Now if the statement is read, what can be noticed is that actually it was accused No.3 who started contacting the petitioner for the purpose of passing on information to accused No.1. It appears that petitioner did not know accused No.3 earlier. Accused No.1 was the classmate of the petitioner. Accused No.1 and 3 knew each other. Because accused No.1 gave the telephone number of the petitioner to accused No.3, the latter started contacting the petitioner for the purpose of passing on certain information to accused No.1. If the entire case is seen in this background, at this stage, it becomes doubtful whether the 5 petitioner was really involved in the crime or not. So far as the incident is concerned, according to charge sheet accused No.1 and 2 came near the house of the first informant and opened gun shot at the window besides damaging the car. The pistol was recovered from accused No.1 and 2. Therefore involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is a matter to be proved before the Court.
8. For invoking Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, the requirement is that more than one charge sheet should be filed before the competent Court within a preceding period of 10 years and that the Court should have taken cognizance of the said offences. This requirement is not forthcoming in the present case. At the time when the petitioner was arrested charge sheets in other cases had not been filed. In this view, existence of prima- facie materials against the petitioner, about his involvement in present crime is not forthcoming. Therefore bail can be granted. Hence the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.6
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.155/2017 registered by Mulki Police Station, Dakshina Kannada on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and furnishing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner is also subjected to following conditions:
i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer.
ii. He shall not directly or indirectly threaten or induce the witnesses.
iii. He shall mark his attendance in the police station once in a week preferably on Sunday between 9.00am and 12.00noon till conclusion of trial.
iv. He shall not get himself involved in any criminal case in future. If any FIR is registered against him, the same will be viewed seriously for canceling the bail.
v. He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial, without fail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/-