Karnataka High Court
State By Yelahanka New Town Police ... vs Sri. Shashidhar on 22 June, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8043 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
STATE BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
INVESTIGATED BY CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
BENGALURU CITY,
REP SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
AND
SRI. SHASHIDHAR
S/O VENUGOPAL NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A 1194, 9TH B CROSS
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064. ... RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI: SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING
TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED 25.08.2016 RELEASING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT ON BAIL, PASSED IN CRL.P.NO.5075/2016
(ANNEXURE-B) IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.160/2016 OF
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S., REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 5 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL
SERVICES MAINTENANCE ACT, 1981 SEC.166, 109, 120B, 124A OF
IPC AND SEC.4 OF THE POLICE (INCITEMENT OF DISAFFECTION) ACT,
2
1922 AND U/S 4 OF POLICE FORCES (RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS) ACT,
1966 NOW INVESIGATED BY THE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH (CCB),
BANGALORE AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THAT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO
CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.06.2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCMENT THIS DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA. J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The State has filed this petition under section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the bail order dated 25.08.2016 in Criminal Petition No.5075/2016 (Annexure- B).
2. Heard Sri.S.Vishwa Murthy, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State and Smt.Swamini Ganesh Mohanambal, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
3. Petitioner has sought for cancellation of the bail for violation of the condition Nos.(b) and (d). The said conditions read as follows:-
"b) the accused shall not incite or call for any agitation by the members of the Police force. They 3 shall not also call for any collective action by the police force to do or not to do any act;
d) the petitioners shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority."
4. The contention of the petitioner is that on 27.09.2015, the respondent/accused No.1 submitted a letter dated 20.09.2016 to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru City, asking for objections, if any, to accept voluntary donations from the police personnel/police families for "Rakshaka Sena Political Party" mentioning therein that, he would go ahead with the receipt of the voluntary donations, if reply is not received within the fortnight. In this letter it was mentioned that Rakshaka Sena was a brain child of the founder of Police Maha Sangha and many police families are its members. The said letter dated 20.09.2016 was produced along with the petition and marked as Annexure-'C'.
5. It is alleged that a notice was served on the accused on 01.10.2016 to appear before the Investigating Officer on 4 04.10.2016 with documents pertaining to "Rakshaka Sena Political Party". The said notice was acknowledged by the accused but he failed to appear before the Investigating Officer, instead made a note on the back of the notice which read as under:
"Protest Memo: you have no authority over "Rakshaka Sena", since this does not come under the purview of crime activities.
I am not contemplated to answer all your queries. Issue of this type of notice is nothing but employing 'bullying tactics'. 'Rakshaka Sena is founded by Police community. I don't need to give you details pertaining to other queries. Don't trouble me again and again on frivolous issue like this. So far not even a single pai is collected either from Police Maha Sangha or through Rakshaka Sena".
6. According to the petitioner, the above conduct of the respondent/accused amounts to violation of condition No.(d). It is stated that inspite of service of notice, the accused 5 deliberately did not appear before the Investigating Officer, thereby he has disobeyed condition No.(d) of the bail order.
7. The second ground urged in the petition is that on 01.10.2016, the accused/respondent posted a picture of the Investigating Officer of this case on his face book account making unscrupulous and derogatory remarks. This appeared in the newspaper. The copy of the said face book post was marked along with the petition as Annexure-E and the newspaper cutting as Annexure-F.
8. Annexures-E and F read as under:
Annexure-E "®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnøÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÀÉAiÀÄ qÀÉ ¸ïÖ©£ï£À°è ©¢ÝzÀÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÉ UÀÉzÀÄPÀÉÆ xÀÆ EªÀgÀ d£ÀäQ̵ÀÄÖ K£ÀAzÀÄPÀÉÆArzÁÝgÀÉ EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ....? vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ £ÀÉ¥À zÀ°è ¨sÀAiÀÉiÁÃvÁàzÀ£ÀÉAiÀÉÄãÁzÀgÀÆ £ÀqÀÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÉ CzÀÄ £À£Àß «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ¹¹©AiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀqÀÉzÀÄPÀÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ jÃw J£ÀßzÀÉà «¢s¬Ä®è £À£Àß vÁ¼ÀÉä UÀÆ MAzÀÄ «Äw¬ÄzÀÉ.
P˱À¯ÉÃAzÀæ J£ÀÄߪÀ C¢üPÁj vÀ£ÀUÀÉ J°è®èzÀ C¢sPÁgÀ EzÀÉAiÀÉÄAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÀÉ £ÀÉÆÃnøï PÀ½¹ £À£Àß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ £ÀɪÀÄ ä¢ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀªÀtÂPÀÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝ£ÀÉ E®è¸À®èzÀ ®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnøÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ºÀzÀÄݧ¹Û£À°èlÄÖPÀÉƼÀî®Ä FvÀ ºÀªÀt¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀAvÀÉ £À£ÀUÀÉ ¨sÁ¸ÀªÁUÀÄwÛzÀÉ £Á£ÀÄ FvÀ£À UÀįÁªÀÄ£ÀÉA zÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ FvÀ w½zÀAwzÀÉ.6
CwAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ P˱À¯ÉÃAzÀæ ¤£Àß G¥Àl¼À £Á¤aѹzÀgÀÉ ¤Ã¤gÀ¨É ÃPÁzÀ eÁUÀ vÀÉÆÃj¸À§¯Éè. PÁAUÀÉæ Ã¸ï ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ ¨Á®§qÀÄPÀ£ÁV £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÉ ¤£ÀUÀÉ eÉÈ°£À zÁj vÀÉÆÃj¹PÀÉÆqÀ§¯Éè. EµÀÖPÀÆÌ ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÀ½¹PÀÉÆlÖ ®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnÃ¸ï £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÀÉAiÀÄ qÀɸïÖ©£ï£À°è ©¢ÝzÀÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÉUÀÉzÀÄPÀÉÆ"
Annexure-F ±À²zsÀgï ¥üÀÉà ¸ï§ÄPï SÁvÀÉB L¦J¸ï C¢üPÁj «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀAzÀÉà ±À '£ÀÉÆÃnøÀÄ qÀɸïÖ-©£ï£À°èzÀÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÉUÀÉzÀÄPÀÉÆ' ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄB CT® PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CzsÀåPÀë «.±À²zsÀgï C§gÀ ¥üÀÉà ¸ï§ÄPï SÁvÀÉAiÀÄ°è L¦J¸ï C¢üPÁj «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀAzÀÉà ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À¯ÁVzÀÉ.
¥Àæw¨sÀl£ÀÉ £ÀqÀɸÀ ®Ä ¥ÀÉÆð¸ÀjUÀÉ ¥ÀæZÀÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÁUÀÆ gÁdzÀÉÆæúÀ DgÀÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀr §A¢üvÀgÁV EwÛÃZÀÉUÀ µÉÖ Ã eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÉÄÃ¯É «.±À²zsÀgï ºÀÉÆgÀUÀÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. vÀ¤SÉUÀÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À¨Éà PÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¥Àæw¨sÀl£ÀÉ UÀÉ ¥ÀæZÀÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ºÀÉà ½PÀÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÀÉÈPÀÉÆÃmïð µÀgÀvÀÄÛ «¢ü¹vÀÄÛ. CzÀgÀÉ FUÀ CªÀgÀ SÁvÀÉAiÀįÉèà ¹¹© «¨sÁUÀzÀ r¹¦ P˱À¯ÉÃAzÀæ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ "®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnøÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÀÉAiÀÄ qÀÉ ¸ïÖ©£ï£À°è ©¢ÝzÀÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÉ UÀÉzÀÄPÀÉÆ' JA§ ²Ã¶ð PÀAiÀÄ°è bÁAiÀiÁavÀæ ¸ÀªÀÉÄÃvÀ ¸ÀAzÀÉà ±À ¥ÀæPÀlªÁVzÀÉ. CzÀgÀ AiÀÄxÁªÀvï gÀÆ¥À E°èzÀÉ.
'xÀÆ EªÀgÀ d£ÀäQ̵ÀÄÖ ..... K£ÀAzÀÄPÀÉÆArzÁÝgÀÉ EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß? vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ £ÀÉ¥À zÀ°è ¨sÀAiÀÉiÁÃvÁàzÀ£ÀÉAiÀÉÄãÁzÀgÀÆ £ÀqÀÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÉ CzÀÄ £À£Àß «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ¹.¹.©.AiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀqÀÉzÀÄPÀÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ jÃw J£ÀßzÀÉà «¢s¬Ä®è £À£Àß vÁ¼ÀÉä UÀÆ MAzÀÄ «Äw¬ÄzÀÉ.
'P˱À¯ÉÃAzÀæ J£ÀÄߪÀ C¢üPÁj vÀ£ÀUÀÉ J°è®èzÀ C¢sPÁgÀ EzÀÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÀÉ £ÀÉÆÃnøï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £À£Àß ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ £ÀɪÀÄ ä¢ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀªÀtÂPÀÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝ£ÀÉ ®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnøÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÀzÀÄݧ¹Û£À°èlÄÖPÀÉƼÀî®Ä ºÀªÀt¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝ£ÀÉ. 7 CwAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ P˱À¯ÉÃAzÀæ ¤£Àß G¥Àl¼À, £Á¤aѹzÀgÀÉ ¤Ã¤gÀ¨É ÃPÁzÀ eÁUÀ vÀÉÆÃj¸À§¯Éè. PÁAUÀÉæ Ã¸ï ¸ÀÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨Á®§qÀÄPÀ£ÁV £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÉ ¤£ÀUÀÉ eÉÈ°£À zÁj vÀÉÆÃj¸ÀÀ§¯Éè. EµÀÖPÀÆÌ ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÀ½¹PÀÉÆlÖ ®qÁ¸ÀÄ £ÀÉÆÃnÃ¸ï £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÀÉAiÀÄ qÀɸïÖ©£ï£À°è ©¢ÝzÀÉ §AzÀÄ vÀÉUÀÉzÀÄPÀÉÆ" JAzÀÄ ¸ÀAzÀÉà ±ÀzÀ°è §gÀÉAiÀįÁVzÀÉ.
9. According to the petitioner, the accused has uploaded several posts on his face book account inciting other police personnel and calling for agitation or collective action in stark violation of condition No.(b) imposed by this Court in the bail order dated 25.08.2016 in Criminal Petition No.5075/2016. In the course of hearing, learned HCGP has reiterated the same contentions and the learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the same.
10. In view of the above contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is, Whether the acts alleged against the respondent/accused amount to violation of condition Nos.(b) and (d) of the bail order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.5075/2016 dated 25.08.2016, leading to cancellation of bail?
8
11. Undisputedly, the letter dated 20.09.2016 at Annexure-C was written by the respondent/accused to the Police Commissioner of Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru on behalf of Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha asking the Police Commissioner whether he had any objections to receive voluntary donations from the police personnel or police families for floating Rakshaka Sena Political Party. It was not addressed to the Investigating Officer.
12. The accusation against the respondent was that he had formed an association called Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha and was spearheading a movement to instigate the lower rung of the police force to act against the present elected Government. He is stated to have addressed messages to the rank and file of the Karnataka Police force to go on mass leave on 4.6.2016 and in order to avoid untoward situation, the Government had issued a notification dated 31.05.2015 declaring that Karnataka State Police Force as essential services under the Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance Act 2013. It is in that context, while enlarging the respondent herein on 9 bail, condition No.(b) was incorporated requiring the respondent herein not to incite or call for any agitation by the members of the police force and also not to call for any collective action by the police force to do or not to do any act. The permission sought for by the respondent from the Police Commissioner to collect voluntary donations from the police personnel or police families for the said Rakshaka Sena Political Party cannot be said to calling for any agitation by the members of the police force nor was it intended to incite the police force to act against the elected Government nor can it be construed as a call for any collective action by the police force to do or not to do any act within the meaning of condition No.(b) of the bail order.
13. No doubt it is true, based on the said communication, the Investigating Officer is said to have called upon the respondent to appear before him on 04.10.2016 with necessary documents relating to the said Rakshaka Sena Political Party and the respondent submitted a protest memo thereto, bringing to the notice of the Investigating Officer that the communication made by him with the Police Commissioner 10 does not come under the purview of the crime activities and therefore, he is not required to answer the queries. The said protest memo, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be understood as a refusal to co-operate in the investigation as sought to be made out by the petitioner. Undisputedly, the activities of the Rakshaka Sena Political Party were not under scanner. Therefore, the respondent was justified in bringing to the notice of the Investigating Officer that he was traversing beyond the scope of the investigation. It is not the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the said date, the respondent refused to participate in the investigation. Therefore, merely on the ground that the respondent made an endorsement protesting the notice issued by the Investigating Officer, cannot be taken as failure of the respondent to co-operate in the investigation, warranting cancellation of the bail on that score. In my opinion, the above conduct of the respondent does not amount to violation of condition Nos.(b) and (d) of the bail order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5075/2016. There are no allegations that the respondent has misused the liberties 11 in any other manner. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made in the petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss