IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.6597/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVI S/O. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT. NO.161, 4TH ‘B’ CROSS RAMAIAH BADAVANE PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH POLICE, BENGALURU THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE SPP-II A/W SRI ROHITH B.J,HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONR ON BAIL IN CR.NO.52/2019 OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 365, 120B, 146, 147, 341, 342, 384, 395, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 27 OF ARMS ACT AND SEC.3 OF KCOC ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.11.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the SPP-II along with HCGP for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in Crime No.52/2019 of Vijayanagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 120B, 146, 147, 341, 342, 384, 395, 307 read with 149 of IPC and also Sections 3 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCOC Act’ for short).
3. The brief facts of the case are:
The complainant by name Kiran Kumar.B. S/o. Bhadraiah, lodged a missing complaint stating that on 19.2.2019 in the morning hours at 5.30 a.m., his father went for walking and did not return. In spite of his best efforts to locate him, the same was in vain. While going for walk, he did not taken his mobile. Therefore, he requested the jurisdictional Police to search for his father by giving details of all the features of his father. During the course of investigation, the police found that the accused persons have actually abducted him for ransom and threatened him with dire consequences of killing him if the demanded amount is not paid by them and thereafter released him after some time.
4. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, the case revolves around the statement of the said Bhadraiah who has not only given statement u/s.161 of Cr.PC. before police but also he gave 164 Cr.PC. statement before the jurisdictional magistrate.
5. As per the statement of the victim and also on perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, it discloses that, there was previous rivalry between this petitioner and the said Bhadraiah with regard to the running of Educational Institutions. The complainant’s father Bhadraiah has been running a school by name Poornima Kannada Higher Primary School, Hegganahalli and he was the founder and Secretary of the alleged incident. He has alleged that, he has been running schools from Montessory to PUC in the said Institution. The petitioner Ravi is the founder of Students and Parents Jagruthi Vedike and he has been making allegations against the teachers and the management of the Institution of the said Bhadraiah and often lodging complaints and also agitating for the fee structure, ceat matrix and the facilities given by the Institutions to the Students. On several occasions he has also conducted Processions, Darnis against the Institutions including the Institution of the said Bhadraiah.
In this background, it is alleged that on 19.2.2019 when the said Bhadraiah at about 6.40 a.m., while he was returning to his house, about two persons abruptly pushed him into a car and the said persons have slapped on the cheek of Bhadraiah and thereafter they took him to Chikkagollarahatti village. At the said place, another car came and the said Bhadraiah transferred to that Car wherein this petitioner was also there, so all of them took Bhadraiah, the father of the complainant to Sathyamangala Forest near Kollegal and the petitioner went back. But other persons detained Bhadraiah later he came to know about the names of these persons as Siddappa, Rangaswamy, Bhadrappa on the same day in the afternoon. Thereafter, the petitioner and Madappa came back and this petitioner was holding two rifles in his hand and he gave one to Siddappa and thereafter they took him to some other place which is like a hillock area. It is alleged that at that place the petitioner demanded Rupees Two crores or to hand over 7,200 square feet of land to the name suggested by the petitioner, in spite of the said Badraiah is telling that the said property is not in his name but it is his ancestral property. It is also stated that, the petitioners and others have threatened Bhadraiah with dire consequences of killing him if he do not pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. It is also alleged that during that time, he has taken the signatures of Bhadraiah on many documents and also letters showing payment of amounts to some Government Officers, Ministers etc., Lastly, he demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and asked the said Bhadraiah to telephone to his son to pay an amount and thereafter he also demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to him. When the said Bhadraiah refused for the same, the petitioner assaulted him with his hand and another person assaulted him with a club. Ultimaterly, on 23.2.2019 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner and others have released victim Bhadraiah by paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards bus fare. However, one Rangaswamy has snatched the watch from this Bhadraiah. Thereafter at about 3.30 p.m., and the said Bhadraiah by catching a bus proceeded to Bengaluru. From there only he telephoned to his son about the above said circumstances. On the basis of the above said circumstances and the statement of the victim, the charge sheet has been filed.
7. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances and also other documents produced before the court with reference to the writ petitions that are pending before the authorities and writ appeals filed i.e., Writ Appeal Nos.4315/2016, 4316/2016 and 4931/2016 passed by this court on 6.1.2017 shows that there was a civil dispute with reference to the schools of the said Bhadraiah as an appellant and this Ravi was cited as respondent No.5 though the said Writ Appeals have been dismissed, these Writ Appeals have been filed against the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.34117-1133/2016 dated 3.10.2016 which discloses that, the said Ravi has filed the Writ Petitions against various institutions seeking directions to the Government and the Institution with reference to the fee structure and other facilities to be given to the students to safeguard the interest of the students, parents and etc., Therefore, it creates a serious doubt at this stage whether really for the purpose of extracting any ransom from the detenu Bhadraiah abduction has been made by Ravi, or whether in view of the Civil disputes between the parties, the said Ravi has really agitating as a dutiful citizen of the country formed a forum to agitate on behalf of the students, parents and other NGO organizations to safeguard the interest of the students studying in various private educational institutions. This aspect in fact has to be thrashed out during the course of full-dressed trial. Secondly, on careful perusal of the statement of Bhadraiah himself, there was absolutely no communication to any of the family members of the said Bhadraiah in demand of money nor it is the case that he in turn informed his son with reference to the demand made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2 crores and thereafter reducing it to Rs.10 lakhs and demand for Rs.50,000/- per month etc., Further added to the above, there was absolutely no money transaction that has been taken in the case. On the other hand, a peculiar circumstance is that the petitioner himself has given an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards bus charges to the said Bhadraiah. These circumstances creates some doubt at this stage, whether really such incident has happened or with reference to civil rivalry between the parties some concoction has been made or any other exaggeration is there in the statement of Bhadraiah. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the nature of allegations and the facts of the case, the provisions invoked under the IPC and Arms Act have to be thrashed out during the course of full- dressed trial. Further added to that, those offences are not compulsorily punishable either with death or life imprisonment.
8. Coming to the next important aspect with regard to invocation of KCOC Act by the Police.
9. The learned SPP-II submitted that the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner of Police has passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to invoke the KCOC Act explaining the reasons in the order dated 20.5.2019. Therefore, it was argued that, when that order is not questioned before the competent authority, the court has to presume that the invocation of the KCOC Act is proper and correct. But, I have got my reservations so far as the submissions are concerned. Merely because the order is passed by the competent authority the court is not debarred from looking to the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether the KCOC Act is attracted or not. On the basis of the facts provided in the entire charge sheet, definitely the court is at liberty to examine whether the KCOC Act is rightly invoked or not? In this background, even as could be seen from the order passed by the Commissioner, in fact against all the accused, the KCOC Act has been invoked. But so far as this petitioner is concerned, it is stated that there are four cases pending against him which are all at the crime stages nothing has been stated that any charge sheet has been filed in any one of the cases against any of the accused persons as noted in the impugned order. More over, there is no mention with regard to these accused persons are the members of the Organized Syndicate which formed prior to commission of any of the offences as shown in the order. In this background, the provisions of KCOC Act has to be looked into. Section 3 defines organized crime as an offence. Section 2(d) defines what is meant by continuing unlawful activity.
10. Section 2(d) of KCOC Act ‘Continuing unlawful activity’ means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.
11. Section 2(e) of the KCOC Act also defines ‘Organized Crime’ which means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency.
12. Section 3 (f) ‘Organized crime syndicate’, means a group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang, indulge in activities of organized crime.
13. Therefore, on meticulous reading of the above said provisions, the organized crime syndicate should be indulged in unlawful activities of the members of at least two or more persons which should be in existence prior to the commission of the offence or offences either singly or collectively by them. In the order noted above passed by the Commissioner, there is no reference as to when actually this organized crime syndicate between the accused were constituted whether it was there prior to the commission of any offence by the members singly or collectively. Further, there is no mention in the order in any one of the cases, whether cognizance was taken and in any one of the case charge sheet has been filed so as to attract the above said provision only crime numbers are mentioned but nothing is forthcoming whether charge sheet has been filed before the competent court and court has taken cognizance of such an offence. In the absence of such materials and in the absence of production of any charge sheet and cognizance order by the court, it is doubtful at this stage whether KCOC Act invoked by the Investigating Officer is proper or not. Therefore, the rigor with reference to grant or refusing bail as per the rider under the KCOC Act, is not strictly applicable at this particular stage.
14. The learned SPP-II also submitted that the accused is involved in many number of cases. Therefore, if he is released on bail, there is every chance of he tampering with the prosecution witnesses. As charge sheet has already been filed, the police have recorded the statement of all the witnesses and at this stage, the court cannot imagine with regard to tampering of any witnesses, further hampering the investigation does not arise because the charge sheet has already been filed. The apprehension of the SPP that the accused may flee from justice also can be controlled by imposing stringent conditions on the accused as the offences are not punishable either with death or life imprisonment and the accused has been arrested and presently, he has been in judicial custody. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a ground for grant of bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.52/2019 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru Citiy, for the alleged offences pending before the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the 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 cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
PL* Sd/- JUDGE