Mr.Amit Mallikarjun Vannur vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3246 Kant

                             1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100129/2021

BETWEEN:

AMIT MALLIKARJUN VANNUR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O. MR. MALLIKARJUN VANNUR
3RD CROSS, SHIVNAGAR,
GOKAK - 591 307
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL AND S.A. QAZI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY GOKAK TOWN POLICE
       REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       DHARWAD BENCH
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       DHARWAD - 580 001

2.     MR. DEEPAK S. INGALGI
       S/O. MR. SRIKANT INGALGI
       ADI JAMBAVANAGAR
       GOKAK - 591 307
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP FOR R1;
      NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF KCOC ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE)
BELAGAVI IN SPL.C.NO.202/2020. AS PER ANNEXURE-A
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENALRGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.72/2020 OF GOKAK TOWN
POLICE NOW NUMBERED AS SPECIAL CASE NO.202/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
                                2



SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120(B), 109, 201, 212 R/W 34, 35, 37 AND 149 OF IPC
ALONG WITH SECTIONS 3(3), 3(4) AND SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT, 2000.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2021, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by Accused No.16 under Section

12 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000

(for short, 'KCOC ACT') for setting aside the order dated

01.03.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi

in Special Case No.202/2020, rejecting the bail petition filed

by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. The factual matrix leading to the case is that, the

deceased Siddappa Arjun Kanamaddi (for short, 'Siddappa')

was the State President of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsha

Samiti and earlier a case has been registered against the

accused persons in connection with murder of one Rohit

Patil. Keeping it in mind, on 06.05.2020 at about 8.00 p.m.,

the accused persons being well-aware of the fact that the

deceased Siddappa was belonging to Scheduled Caste,

formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, came in

number of vehicles to Adi Jambav Nagar Cross at Gokak

Town, abused the deceased Siddappa referring with his caste

and with an intention to cause his death, assaulted him with

swords and machetes causing grievous injuries to him.

When the complainant and three other witnesses tried to

interfere, the accused have also given life threat to them and

later on Siddappa admitted in the hospital, wherein his

statement was recorded and he has disclosed the identity of

the assailants. Later on, Siddappa succumbed to injuries on

07.05.2020 and the complainant filed a complaint. Later on,

FIR came to be registered. Subsequently, during the course

of investigation, it is revealed to the Investigating Officer

that the accused are also involved in collecting Hafta from

business persons in Gokak Town by extortion and they were

members of the organized syndicate. After investigation,

the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against

the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143,

147, 302, 504, 506 and 120(B) read with 149 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section3(2)(V) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, 'SC & ST Act') and Section

25(1A) of Indian Arms Act, 1989 and Sections 3 & 4 of the

KCOC Act 2000, after obtaining necessary sanction. The

present appellant is arraigned as Accused No.16.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public

Prosecutor (for short, 'SPP'). Perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the

crime and there is no material evidence as against him. He

would also contend that strict compliance of Section 24(1A)

of KCOC Act is not followed and there is no authorization

under Section 24(2) of the KCOC Act by the Government of

Karnataka and admittedly, the appellant was not present at

the time of occurrence of alleged offences. He would also

invite attention of the Court to Section 2(e) and 2(f) of the

KCOC Act and appellant was apprehended on 12.09.2020

and there is no other material as against him and hence, he

would seek for enlarging the appellant on anticipatory bail by

allowing the appeal.

5. On the contrary, the learned Special SPP has

seriously objected the appeal contending that the present

appellant is a member of the organized Syndicate known as

Tiger Gang and the deceased was also earlier belonging to

the Tiger Gang and since differences arose in the Syndicate,

he came out and formed his own Gang and he was the

president of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsha Samiti.

6. It is the specific assertion of the prosecution that

the present appellant is also a Member of the Organized

Crime Syndicate-Tiger Gang, which is involved in collecting

Hafta and extortion by creating fear in business community

people in Gokak town. In this regard, he submitted that the

statements of 66 prosecution witnesses clearly establish this

aspect regarding organized syndicate and extortion by the

present appellant/Accused No.16 and certain agreements of

sale and sale deeds pertaining to Accused Nos. 1 and 14

were recovered from his custody and the confessional

statement of Accused Nos. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17 and that of

the present appellant also supports the case. He would also

contend that the blank cheques were also recovered from his

custody and 42 cases were registered against him and there

is nexus between Accused Nos.1 & 2 and this appellant, and

the confessional statement is admissible under Section 19 of

the KCOC Act. Hence, he would contend that there is

material evidence and as such the appeal is devoid of any

merits and sought for rejection.

7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing on both sides and on perusing

the records it is evident that, the prosecution has

specifically alleged that the appellant is the Member of the

organized syndicate known as Tiger Gang, which is involved

in collection of Hafta in Gokak Town from business

community people. The records further disclose that, when

the search was conducted in the house of the accused, the

agreements of sale and sale deeds in favour of Accused

No.1, blank cheques etc., were traced. Further, the

witnesses CW.1, 5, 6, 13 to 15, 46 to 54, 81, 113, 79, 80,

82 to 94, 101 to 105, 112, 114, 116 to 120, 124 to 127,

140, 144, 170, 172, 173, 143, 148, 159, 168, 169, 171,

185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 125 and CW.33 have given

statement against the present appellant/Accused No.16

regarding he being the member of the organized syndicate

indulged in collecting Hafta. Hence, there is prima facie

case as against the present appellant. Further, recovery also

discloses that he was indulged in extortion. Apart from that,

he is also the signatory to the sale deed of Accused No.2 and

he had regularly conversed in call with Accused No.1 and

20. All these documents prima facie establish the

involvement of the present appellant in this case.

8. During the course of argument, learned counsel

has contended that there is no compliance under Section 24

of the Act. Section 24 of the KCOC Act reads as under:-

"Sec. 24. Cognizance of and investigation into an offence. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, -

(a) No information about the commission of an offence of organized crime under this Act shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police;

(b) No investigation of an offence under the provisions of this Act shall be carried out by a police officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(2) No Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the police officer not below the rank of an Additional Director General of Police"

9. The learned counsel would contend that, there is

no authorization by the Government regarding who has to

give prior approval. As per the Statute, Police Officers not

below the rank of DIG of Police can give authorization. He

would contend that there are number of DIGs and hence,

sanction itself is invalid. He would also contend that,

cognizance cannot be taken when there is no clarity as to

who has to give sanction. However, in this context, the

learned SPP has invited the attention of the Court that the

sanction has been accorded for investigation and

subsequently, the crime under KCOC Act is revealed. He

would also contend that for continuation of investigation,

sanction is not required, and for prosecution and submission

of the charge sheet, the sanction is accorded by the

jurisdictional DIG. Learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that there cannot be any presumption that only

jurisdictional DIG shall grant sanction, as Act is silent.

However, as the charge sheet is submitted after obtaining

the sanction, the validity of sanction cannot be gone into at

this juncture in the this appeal, which is required for bail.

Prima facie sanction is granted for prosecution and hence the

said ground cannot be considered in this appeal.

10. Section 2(e) defines 'Organized Crime' and

Section 2(f) defines 'Organised Crime Syndicate'. It is

argued that, under Section 30 of the Act, power is vested

with the state Government to frame the Rules and no Rules

have been framed. But, it is to be noted here that Section

29 of the Act prescribes the powers and procedure for the

High Court to make rules regarding Special Courts and under

Section 30 of the Act, the State Government is empowered

to frame Rules, if necessary and it is not mandatory. When

the Act itself specifies, it is not mandatory to the State to

frame rules in this regard.

11. The involvement of the accused in 42 cases is

clarified in the charge sheet and nexus is also disclosed. The

learned counsel for appellant in this context, placed reliance

on the decision in Criminal Appeal No.100093/2021

(Jagadish Vs. The State of Karnataka and another)

clubbed with Criminal Appeal 100089/2021 (Anand

Siddalingappa Gotadaki Vs. State of Karnataka and

another) dated 02.07.2021, wherein Accused Nos. 11

and 14 were granted regular bail by this Court and ground of

parity is put-forward. But, considering the overt-act alleged

against the present appellant, the ground of parity cannot be

made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case

in hand. In this context, the learned S.P.P. has placed

reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition

Nos.4653/2016 c/w. 4587/2016 ( Safeer Ahmed and

Abdul Rehaman Vs. State of Karnataka) dated

14.11.2016. The specific allegation against the present

appellant is that, he is the Member of the organized crime

syndicate known as Tiger Gang and charge sheet clarifies

his overt-act regarding collecting Hafta and that allegation is

supported by the material statement of the witnesses.

Further, there is confessional statement given by co-

accused, which is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOC

Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision

unreported of Delhi High Court in Bail Application

No.1638/2019 (Digvijay Saroha Vs. State) dated

29.08.2019.

12. When the prosecution is prima facie able to

establish that the accused is a Member of the organized

syndicate, that itself is sufficient to draw the provisions of

the KCOC Act. Hence, looking to the nature and gravity of

the offences, this is not a fit case, wherein the discretion can

be exercised in favour of the appellant by granting bail.

Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and needs to be

dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*