Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajesh Nayak vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30688
WP No. 51294 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 51294 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAJESH NAYAK
S/O SRI. NARASIMHA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT BETHA HOUSE,
KAROPADY VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK-574211.
2. SRI. NARASIMHA @ NARASIMHA SHETTY
S/O SRI. NARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT LAKKAPPAKODI HOUSE
MANI POST AND VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK-574 211.
3. SRI. SATHEESH RAI,
S/O SRI. SOMAPPA RAI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by R/AT PILINGULI HOUSE,
SUMA KANYANA VILLAGE
Location: BANTWAL TALUK-574211.
HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. M. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30688
WP No. 51294 of 2017
HC-KAR
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NO.2, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU-560 001
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
WESTERN RANGE
MANGALURU (D.K.)-575001
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PANDESHWAR ROAD
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PANDESHWAR
MANGALURU-575 001
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITLA POLICE STATION,
BANTWAL TALUK (D.K.)-574 211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTER, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
01.07.2017 NO.CRM-1/85/WR/2017, PASSED BY THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANISED CRIMES ACT PURSUANT
THERETO IN CRIME NO.83/2017 OF VITLA POLICE STATION AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30688
WP No. 51294 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.CRM-1/85/WR/2017 dated 01.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.4. They have also sought for a declaration that the phrase "or under any other Act" found in Section 22(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, 'the KCOCA, 2000') is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to strike down the said phrase. They have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent - State to pay compensation for violation of their fundamental rights and their illegal detention.
2. The facts in brief are that the responden1t - Police had registered Crime No.83/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 302, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against four unknown persons based on the information furnished by the complainant. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC:30688 WP No. 51294 of 2017 HC-KAR respondent - Police arrested the petitioners and produced them before the Magistrate. During the course of investigation, the respondent - Police invoked Sections 5, 37 and 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Later, they invoked Section 3 of the KCOCA, 2000 which was intimated to the Magistrate on 04.07.2017. Following this, an application was filed by the respondent - Police on 20.07.2017 before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, for transfer of the case file in Crime No.83/2017 to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru which is the designated Court to try offences under KCOCA, 2000.
3. The investigation was then transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The CID submitted a charge sheet dropping the offences under the KCOCA, 2000. Nonetheless, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the validity of Section 22(5) of the KCOCA, 2000, as far as it prevents an accused from seeking bail in a case relating to an offence under the KCOCA, 2000, if he is released on bail "under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:30688 WP No. 51294 of 2017 HC-KAR any other Act" as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue regarding constitutional validity of a para materia provision in Section 21(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and others [Criminal Appeal Nos.1376-1379 of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.753-756 of 2004) decided on 01.09.2008] and the issue is no longer res integra. He submitted that prayer No.(i) to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 does not survive for consideration. He submitted that prayer No.(iii) regarding compensation for violation of fundamental right and illegal detention of the petitioners can be kept open to be adjudicated in a proper proceeding.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the fact that the validity of a para materia provision as -6- NC: 2025:KHC:30688 WP No. 51294 of 2017 HC-KAR contained in Section 22(5) of the KCOCA, 2000 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above.
6. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the Constitutional validity of Section 21(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which restricted an accused from seeking bail if he was enlarged on bail for any offence punishable "under any other Act" and held as follows:
"47. As discussed above the object of the MCOCA is to prevent the organised crime and, therefore, there could be reason to deny consideration of grant of bail if one has committed a similar offence once again after being released on bail but the same consideration cannot be extended to a person who commits an offence under some other Act, for commission of an offence under some other act would not be in any case in consonance with the object of the act which is enacted in order to prevent only organised crime.
48. We consider that a person who is on bail after being arrested for violation of law unconnected with MCOCA, should not be denied his right to seek bail if he is arrested under the MCOCA, for it cannot be said that he is a habitual offender. The provision of denying his right to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30688 WP No. 51294 of 2017 HC-KAR seek bail, if he was arrested earlier and was on bail for commission of an offence under any other Act, suffers from the vice of unreasonable classification by placing in the same class, offences which may have nothing in common with those under MCOCA, for the purpose of denying consideration of bail. The aforesaid expression and restriction on the right of seeking bail is not even in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Act and, therefore, on the face of the provisions this is an excessive restriction."
7. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. It is declared that the phrase "or under any other Act" found in Section 22(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 are held to be unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for by the petitioners to quash the order bearing No.CRM-1/85/WR/2017 dated 01.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 has now become academic since the provision of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 is now dropped in the charge sheet filed against the petitioners. The relief regarding payment of compensation by the respondent - State for violation of fundamental rights and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:30688 WP No. 51294 of 2017 HC-KAR illegal detention of the petitioners is kept open and it is open for the petitioners to seek adjudication of the same before the appropriate Authority in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48