Karnataka High Court
Harisha R R vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10352/2022
BETWEEN:
HARISHA R.R.
S/O RAMESH NAIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A RACHAIAHNADODDI VILLAGE
V.R. DODDI POST, KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINSON, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION
MANDYA
NOW REPTD. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP,
SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
APPLICANT ASSISTED HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.118/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,
323, 506, 342, 363, 364A, 368, 384, 385, 386, 395, 420,
149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, MANDYA.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2022, COMING ON FOR
2
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.118/2022 of Mandya West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 323, 506, 342, 363, 364A, 368, 384, 385, 386, 395 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM Court, Mandya.
2. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant-aggrieved person. Perused the records.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is a proprietor of Srinidhi Gold Company in Mandya. On 26.02.2022 he had reserved a ticket from Mandya to Mangalore via Mysore in KSRTC Rajahamsa bus and as such he was waiting near 3 KSRTC bus-stand at Mandya to board a bus. At about 8.00 p.m. a car came near him and inmates have enquired with him that whether he was owner of the Srinidhi Gold Company and reasons for he waiting there. Then the complainant admitted that he was the owner of the Srinidhi Gold Company and replied that he was waiting for a Mangalore bus via Mysore. Then the inmates of the car offered the complainant to drop him at Mysore. Since the inmates of the car shown acquaintance, the complainant has agreed and boarded the car. In the car one lady by name Salma Banu and one Jayanth got themselves introduced. When they reached Mysore the inmates of the car requested the complainant that their friends have brought some gold biscuits and they were staying at Darshan Palace and requested him to check the biscuits to confirm as to whether they are real or fake. However, initially complainant denied on the ground that he was getting late and he is going to miss the Mangalore bus. But the said persons assured him that they will drop him to the 4 bus stand and it is a matter of five minutes. Then they drove to Darshan Palace hotel and there they entered a room and immediately a girl aged about 22-25 years entered the room and other inmates of the car suddenly disappeared. Then other 3-4 persons entered the room and started accusing the complainant that he had brought that girl who later on entered in to the room and they have taken certain photographs. Then they confined the complainant in the room and demanded ransom of Rs.4 crores. However, later on it was settled for Rs.50,00,000/-. On the next day morning by 10.00 clock the complainant from different persons secured Rs.50,00,000/- and same was received by the accused and he was released. Then the complainant returned to his house. However, after 6 months he lodged a complaint on the ground that again there was a demand for additional amount. On the basis of this complaint the crime came to be registered and the present petitioner came to be apprehended. The investigating officer has also said to 5 have recovered Rs.88,000/- from the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.6 and later on he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has approached the learned sessions judge and the learned sessions judge has rejected his bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the complaint and though the alleged offence is said to have taken place on 26.02.2022 the complaint came to be lodged on 19.08.2022 after lapse of nearly 6 months. It is also alleged that complainant belongs to a political party and question of he committing delay does not arise at all. It is also alleged that money was collected in Mysore, but complaint came to be lodged in Mandya and entire case of the prosecution rests on narration of the complainant without there being any document. He would also contend that there are no material documents to show that any incident as alleged dated 26.02.2022 has occurred and regarding 6 payment of ransom of Rs.50,00,000/- is also doubtful as the same is paid from different persons and no accounts are produced in this regard. He would also contend that how the cash was arranged over night is not explained and the video clipping of complainant assaulting a girl was made viral and the investigating officer has not collected the video clipping and verified genuineness of the same. He would contend that the entire case of the prosecution is based on surmises. He would also contend that presence of petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency as investigation is also concluded and charge sheet has been laid down and as such it is prayed for admitting the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that it is a organized crime committed by the present petitioner along with other accused and they are habitual offenders involved in similar offences including honey trap. It is further contended that statement of 7 Cws.19 to 22 disclose that the amount was paid by them on behalf of complainant and the conduct of the accused itself disclose their involvement. He would also contend that one of the accused who is already granted bail has already threatened the complainant and necessary steps are being taken in this regard. Hence, it is prayed for rejection of the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the allegations were regarding kidnapping and demanding ransom. Though it is not strictly a kidnapping case, but according to prosecution it is a organized crime of honey trap. Interestingly, the allegations of the prosecution disclose that complainant was waiting near bus stand near Mandya to catch a bus in order to go to Mangalore via Mysore as he had already booked a ticket. At the outset no material evidence is secured by the investigating officer to show that on 26.02.2022 the complainant had booked any ticket from Mandya to Mangalore via Mysore. If at all the complainant is 8 required to board a bus in Mandya, there was no need for him to board the car of the accused so as to go to Mysore. What was the need for the complainant to go to Mysore in the car is not at all explained when his booking was from Mandya and he could have boarded the bus in Mandya itself.
7. Apart from that as per the case of the prosecution, he was taken to Darshan Palace hotel wherein the alleged offence is said to have taken place. In that event no material evidence is produced to show that the petitioner was taken to Darshan Palace hotel or he stayed there. There is no material evidence to show that as to in whose name the room was booked in the Darshan Palace hotel and this material evidence is also missing. Apart from that the allegations of the prosecution disclose that the present petitioner was driving the car. Admittedly, the petitioner was not known to the victim/complainant. He has seen him first time when he boarded the car as per the case of the prosecution. In that event the investigating officer 9 ought to have conducted the identification parade but that is also not forthcoming. Much arguments have been advanced regarding organized crime. But no evidence is placed to show the involvement of the present petitioner in any of the similar offences as alleged.
8. Apart from that the alleged offence is said to have taken place on 26.02.2022, but the complaint came to be lodged on 19.08.2022. There is delay of almost 6 months in lodging the complaint. A bald allegation is made that again some ransom was demanded and hence he was compelled to lodge a complaint. But the complaint does not disclose again when the ransom was demanded, what was the amount demanded, in what way it was demanded and whether it is by way of phone or otherwise. A vague allegations is made in this regard. Further it is also asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a video of complainant assaulting an woman has become viral earlier and the investigating officer ought 10 to have secured that video clipping to ascertain the genuineness of the video, but that was also not done. The long period of delay of 6 months cannot be taken in a lighter way. Apart from that the allegations disclose that Rs.88,000/- was recovered from the custody of the present petitioner. Hence, it is evident that the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency. The petitioner is in custody since long time and as observed above he is no more required by the investigating agency.
9. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion considering the conduct of the complainant and delay in filing the complaint, the petitioner can be admitted to bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP and the learned counsel for the complainant can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. As such, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.11
The petitioner/Accused No.6 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.118/2022 of Mandya West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 323, 506, 342, 363, 364A, 368, 384, 385, 386, 395 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
(ii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.
(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission of the trial Court.
(iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.
(v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS CT:NR