Karnataka High Court
Anees P T vs State By Thunganagar Police Station on 7 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1323, 2019 (4) AKR 371
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7H DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4491 OF 2019
BETWEEN
ANEES P T
S/O MOHIUDDIN KUTTI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
PARAPANA BOYAL TAMARAKERI
CALICUT
KERALA - 673 004. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RANGANATH REDDY R., ADV.)
AND
STATE BY
THUNGANAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.553/2018 REGISTERED BY TUNGA NAGAR
POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143, 144, 147, 148, 506, 307, 395, 364A, 342, 450 AND 120B
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 25(1) OF ARMS ACT
AND SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED
CRIMES ACT.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is cited as accused No.10 in Crime No.553/2018 on the file of respondent - Police for the offences under Sections 144, 147, 148, 506, 307, 395, 364-A, 342, 450, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 ('KCOCA' for brevity).
3. The entire charge sheet papers are produced before the court. On the basis of the charge sheet, a Special Case in No.50/2019 has been registered. -3-
4. The brief facts of the case is that:
On 05.07.2018 at about 6.20 p.m., accused No.1 along with his four other counterparts came in Verna car bearing registration No.KA-01/MD-3928, entered the Granite premises of the complainant and accused No.1 shown a pistol and four other accused persons were possessed with knife, long choppers, etc. and threatened the complainant to go along with them. Accordingly, they took him to Gadigoppa Aluru Anupinakatte Layout at about 6.45 p.m. The said accused persons have threatened the complainant with dire consequence with the above deadly weapons and demanded an amount of `50,00,000/- from the complainant, for which the complainant telephoned his brother-in-law and informed him that his friend is coming to the complainant's house and to pay him the amount. Accordingly, accused No.1 along with his counterparts reached the house of the complainant and threatened the wife, mother-in-law and children of the complainant and told them that he has -4- kidnapped the complainant and demanded ` 5 crores ransom from the family members and returned back to the complainant and accused No.1 pushed the complainant inside the Innova car and other three persons came in Duster car, which shows that totally eight persons were gathered in connection with the said case and thereafter one person by name Ahmed, who was in the complainant's house, has brought an amount of `5,00,000/- and handed over the said amount to the counterparts of accused No.1, who came in Duster car near Kashipura Railway Gate.
5. On these allegations, initially a case has been registered and the Police have investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, they also found that accused No.10 (petitioner herein) was also in the said group of the accused persons.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the invocation of KCOCA is unwarranted -5- as this is the only case pending against the accused No.10. He has been falsely implicated subsequently on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused persons and as far as the witnesses are concerned, they are subsequently and belatedly examined by the Police.
7. On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet, of course, in the first information report and at the initial stage, the presence of accused No.10 and his participation was not spoken to. Further added to that, subsequently and belatedly, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the witnesses have been examined and some of the witnesses, who actually seen the incident, have stated about the participation of the petitioner herein. The name of the petitioner surfaced only during the course of investigation and at the time of filing of the charge sheet, his name was also incorporated. Though the offences are seriously punishable particularly under the provisions of KCOCA, -6- Arms Act and Section 395 of IPC, but the participation of accused No.10 when his name does not find a place in the FIR and even subsequently as could be seen from the complaint that eight persons were shown to have been involved and when actually he joined them is the question to be proved during the course of full-dressed trial.
8. So far as the offences under the provisions of KCOCA is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is very difficult at this stage to draw an inference that this man was a syndicate member earlier also along with other accused persons and they have been committing such offences and the charge sheets were filed against some of the accused persons, which also entangles the petitioner in order to invoke the said KCOCA.
9. Admittedly, there is no other case pending against the present petitioner and no charge sheets have -7- been filed against the petitioner. Therefore, when the invocation of the KCOCA is doubtful, it may not be proper on the part of the Court to reject the bail petition particularly because the KCOCA is invoked against this petitioner. Therefore, during the course of full-dressed trial, if it is established that he is also a syndicate member and even earlier also he has participated in any of the crimes or he was the syndicate member though his name does not find in any other charge sheet, but the other accused persons were involved, in such an eventuality, the court can definitely take into consideration at the time of recording of the evidence and in such an eventuality, it can alter the charges and even the court can convict the accused for the offence under the KCOCA also at the time of pronouncing the judgment, on the basis of the evidence on record.
10. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the participation of petitioner - accused -8- No.10 has to be established beyond reasonable doubt during the course of full-dressed trial.
11. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, with stringent conditions, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.553/2018 of Tunga Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga, pending in Special Case No.50/2019 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, for the offences under Sections 144, 147, 148, 506, 307, 395, 364-A, 342, 450, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the -9- like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine reason;
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-