Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The materials also show that on 23.03.2016, there was an order by the Government of Karnataka to hand over the case to CID Police. On 20.04.2016, the Investigating Officer submitted the report to Addl. Director General of Police to invoke the provisions of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KCOCA') and accordingly, the provisions of KCOCA are also invoked in the said crime.

The above petitioners approached the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking their release on bail and the said bail petitions were rejected by the concerned Court.

5. The prosecution opposed the petitions by filing separate objection statement in the respective petitions, but the sum and substance of the objections are as under.

On taking up the investigation from the local Police and after considering the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, investigation papers, etc., exercising powers conferred under Section 24(1)(a) of the KCOCA, The Addl. General of Police, CID, has passed an order invoking Section 3 of KCOCA, after ascertaining that the main accused persons having formed an "Organised Crimes Syndicate" continuously since 2008 and they have been involved in many cases related to question paper leakage and thus, investigation is continued. On 28.09.2010, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein and other accused persons, totaling to 18 accused persons, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 454, 457, 380, 461, 166, 201 read with Section 109 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) of KCOCA and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also Section 23 and 115 of Karnataka Education Act.

11. Heard the arguments of Sri Hasmath Pasha learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4; Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned Counsel for petitioner-ccused No.6; so also the arguments of Sri Ravindra Babu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos.7 and 8 and also the arguments of Sri Ashok N.Naik, learned Spl.PP for the respondent-State.

12. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel for accused No.3 and 4 during the course of his arguments has submitted that so far as accused Nos.1 to 10 is concerned, the provisions of KCOCA are invoked and so far as accused Nos.11 to 18, only the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC and Education Act are invoked. He has submitted that for invoking the provisions of KCOCA, the procedure contemplated under the said Act is also not followed in the case. He has also submitted that writ petition has been filed by the accused persons, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that, for the present and while hearing the bail petition, the offences under the provisions of KCOCA are not made applicable. Hence, he has submitted that for the present, the alleged offences are to be treated only under the provisions of the IPC and Karnataka Education Act. So for as accused No.4 is concerned, except this case, no other case is registered for attracting the provisions of KCOCA for the last 10 years and so far as accused No.3 is concerned, one case in C.C. No.372/2011 for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC is pending before JMFC Court at Gubbi and C.C.No.251/2014 is pending before JMFC, Tumkur. It is also his submission that C.C. No.372/2011 on the file of JMFC, Gubbi, is ended in acquittal by the judgment dated 7.08.2015 and another case in Mahalakshmi Layout PS crime No.369/2015 has been filed and still no charge sheet has been filed and no cognizance is taken. Hence, he has submitted that looking to these factual aspects, the mandatory requirements of the KCOCA that within the period of 10 years, two criminal cases have to be registered, wherein the charge sheet is to be filed and cognizance is to be taken, is not complied. It is his contention that when accused No.3 has been acquitted in one case, it is as good as there is no case at all. He has also submitted that in the charge sheet material, names of some of the witnesses were left blank and therefore, the statement is not complete in all respects and it will not give complete factual story to the accused person while defending his case. Hence, submitted that even with regard to the allegation that the treasury box kept at Hangal treasury was opened and photograph of the Chemistry paper was taken in the mobile phone, thereafter it was developed and circulated to many other persons cannot be believed. He has further submitted that there use to be two keys to open the lock of the treasury, therefore, the opening of the treasury box by accused alone is not possible. He has further submitted that some of the other accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. He has also submitted that looking to the entire charge sheet material, there is no prima-facie case made out and hence, submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 are to be released on bail by imposing the reasonable conditions.

The learned Spl.PP drew the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the KCOCA and made submission that it is not necessary that against all the accused persons, there must be two criminal cases registered wherein the Court has taken cognizance. He made submission that the conduct of other accused persons who assisted and abetted accused Nos.1 to 3 who are the members of the organised crime syndicate, has to be considered. Antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored. He further drew the attention of this Court to Section 22 of the KCOCA and submitted that the State has made out the case that the provisions of the KCOCA are applicable and charge sheet has been filed invoking the provisions of the KCOCA as against some of the accused. The learned Spl.PP lastly made submission that the alleged offences are serious in nature affecting the entire society at large and more particularly, the students community who were preparing for writing PUC-II year (Chemistry paper). Hence he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. He has relied upon the following decisions: