Nagu Alias Nagesh Tanaji Modekar vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3247 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.100139/2021

BETWEEN:

NAGU @ NAGESH TANAJI MODEKAR,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SAMBRA,
TALUK & DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
REP. BY ADDITIONAL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M. SHEELAVANT, SPP)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 12(1) OF KCOC
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE), BELAGAVI
IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.108/2021 DATED 01.03.2021 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT (ACCUSED NO.20) VIDE CHARGE
SHEET, ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN GOKAK TOWN
PS. CRIME NO.72/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 109, 115 R/W 34, 35, 37 AND 149 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3(2), 3(4) OF THE KCOCA ACT, 2000 (KCOCA) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE (KCOCA SPECIAL
JUDGE), BELAGAVI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.202/2020.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 25.08.2021 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
                                     2



OF JUDGMENT' ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2021 FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                               JUDGMENT

IA No.1/2021 is filed for condoning the delay.

Considering the grounds, IA No.1 is allowed.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 12(1) of the

Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act,2000 ( for 'KCOC

Act') for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2021 passed

by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.108/2021 and sought for enlarging the

appellant/Accused No.20 on bail in Special Case

No.202/2020 arising out Crime No. 72/2020 of Gokak Town

Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120B, 212, 201, 109,

115, 504 and 506 r/w. 34, 35, 37 & 149 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 ( for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(v), 3(2)(V-a), 8(1)(A) of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(Amendment Act 01/2016) (for short, 'SC & ST Act') and

Section 25(1)(A), 25(1)(B) ,VI(6) & (7) of Arms Act, 1959

(Amended Act, 2019) and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4),

3(5) and 4 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act,

2020 ( for short, KCOC Act).

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that, one

Mr. Deepak Ingalgi, the resident of Gokak Town, has filed a

complaint against some of the accused. The deceased

Siddappa Arjuna Kanamaddi (for short, 'Siddappa') was the

State President of Youth Wing of Dalit Sangharsh Samiti and

the accused are from Maratha Community. The case was

registered against the accused in respect of murder of one

Rohit Patil and having grudge, on 06.05.2020 at about 8.00

p.m., the accused persons having knowledge that the

deceased Siddappa belongs to Scheduled Caste, formed

themselves into an unlawful assembly and came in many

number of vehicles to Adi Jambav Nagar Cross at Gokak

Town, abused Siddappa with reference to his caste and

assaulted him with swords and machetes causing bleeding

grievous injuries. When the complainant and others tried to

intervene, they were given life threat and later on, Siddappa

was admitted to the hospital and there his statement was

recorded through video, which disclosed the identity of

assailants. The said Siddappa succumbed to injuries on

07.05.2020 at about 4.00 a.m. During the course of

investigation, Investigating Officer got information that the

present appellant, who is accused, being a Member of Tiger

Gang in Gokak Town was collecting Hafta and creating

apprehension in the mind of the Business Community. It is

also alleged that, he was having telephonic conversions with

Accused No.2 regularly and the mobile CDRs were collected,

and charge sheet was filed showing him as Accused No.20.

4. The appellant approached the court of Principal

District and Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and the

learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition. Hence,

he filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that, the appellant is innocent of the charges alleged and he

is a vegetable vendor doing business with his grand mother

in Gokak and he used to submit every day night the waste

vegetables to Godhama of Accused No2 and he had contact

with him only in business transactions, and he is not

concerned with other allegations. He would also contend

that the provisions of KCOC Act are not applicable to the

appellant and there is no bar for granting anticipatory bail.

Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned SPP has seriously

objected the appeal on the ground that the present appellant

is declared as a proclaimed offender by issuing proclamation

and the record disclose that he was the part of the Gang

indulged in collecting Hafta by extortion and his contention

that he is not involved in any other crime, is not a ground

and his involvement and assistance in the activities of the

Gang itself establish the offence and hence, he prayed for

rejection of the appeal.

7. The allegation of the prosecution is that, the

appellant was the Member of Organised Crime Syndicate

known as Tiger Gang in Gokak Town and was engaged in

collecting Hafta from wealthy persons in the Town by

extortion by creating fear in the society. Though it is argued

that he is a vegetable vendor, the records disclose that he

has amassed wealth disproportionate to his income. The

allegations against him were regarding the offence under

Sections 3 & 4 of the KCOC Act. Further, the provisions of

KCOC Act are invoked after obtaining sanction and charge

sheet has been laid down. Now the contention that, 'the

provisions of KCOC Act are not attracted' holds no water

and the remedy is somewhere else. Further, the documents

produced by the prosecution disclose that, the appellant was

a proclaimed offender and on 07.02.2020, an order of

proclamation was issued against the present appellant along

with Accused Nos. 18 & 19 and that itself clearly established

that the appellant is not easily accessible . When a

proclamation is issued against the appellant, he cannot seek

discretionary relief. Further, when the provisions of KCOC

Act are already invoked by submitting the charge sheet

against him, the provisions of Section 22(3) of KCOC Act

comes into effect and as such anticipatory bail cannot be

granted, as there is a bar.

8. When the appellant is a proclaimed offender,

granting anticipatory bail amounts to nullifying the said order

itself. The said order is not challenged or set aside. Such an

order cannot be nullified by such an attempt.

(1) Further, the statement of 51 witnesses disclose

his involvement in collecting Hafta. Further he was regularly

in telephonic conversion with Accused Nos.1 to 5, 8, 12, 15

to 17 and 19, which is not explained which is evident of

CDR. He was also witness to sale deed in favour of Accused

Nos.1 & 2.

(2) Apart from that, confessional statement of

Accused Nos.1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 15 to 17 establish his

involvement and the said statements are admissible in

evidence under Section 19 of KCOC Act. As such, prima

facie material is also available against him.

9. Under these circumstances, question of

entertaining the appeal for granting bail does not arise at all

and the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same needs

to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*