Karnataka High Court
Raja @ Cat Raja vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.45/2024
BETWEEN :
Raja @ Cat Raja
S/o Elumalai
Aged about 35 years
Permanent Resident of
Holalu Village, Dudda hobli
Mandya District
Karnataka - 571 402.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri Sandesh J Chouta, Senior Advocate for
Sri Sunil Kumar S, Advocate)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka
By Gubbi P.S.
Rep. by Learned
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building Complex
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Sri Manoj Kuamr G N
S/o Narasimamurthy G C
@ Kurimurthy
2
Aged about 27 years
R/a. Old Ak Colony
Gubbi Town, Tumkuru
Karnataka - 572 129.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri B Lakshman, HCGP for R1
R2 Served and unrepresented)
---
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2)
of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated
17.11.2023 Special C.C.No.2877/2022 passed by the
Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-1
and enlarge the appellant/accused No.2 on bail in
Cr.No.131/2022 of Gubbi P.S. for the offence P/U/S 109,
120B, 143, 147, 148, 212, 302, 210 R/W 149 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and section
3(1)(i)(2)(3)(4) of KCOCA Act and etc.,
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved
for judgment, this day, SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR J, delivered the following;
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No.2
praying to set aside the order dated 17.11.2023 passed in
Special C.C. No.2877/2022 by the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder, the bail application
of this appellant - accused No.2 sought in respect of Crime
No.131/2022 of Gubbi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 143, 147, 148,
212, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter
referred to as "SC and ST Act"), and Section
3(1)(i)(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized
Crimes Act, 2000 (for short hereinafter referred to as
"KCOC Act") came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice none
appears for respondent No.2-complainant and he remained
absent and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
15.06.2022, Gubbi Police Station had registered a case in
crime No.131/2022 against 5 to 6 unknown persons in
connection with murder of one G.C. Narasimha Murthy,
based on a complaint lodged by the son of the deceased
namely Sri Manoj K.G.N. On completion of the
investigation in the case, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police of Sira Sub-Division, Sira laid a charge sheet against
16 accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 109, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 212, 302, 201 read
with Section 149 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST
Act and Section (1)(i)(2)(3)(4) of the KCOC Act.
4. As per charge sheet, case of the prosecution is
that on 27.04.2022 at about 8.00p.m accused No.1 and
accused Nos.2, 3, 9, 10 and 12 to 16 joined for a dinner in
Sy.No.93 of Bikkegudda Village in Gubbi Taluk and entered
into criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased and
thereafter accused No.1 sought help of accused Nos.4 to 8
and 11 to murder the deceased. It is stated that
accordingly accused Nos.1 to 12 entered into criminal
conspiracy at room No.106 of Srivari Lodge at Nitturu and
in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, on 15.06.2022
accused Nos.3, 9 and 10 gave information to accused Nos.4
to 8 and 11 about the location of the deceased and based
on such information accused Nos.1 and 4 to 8 went to the
spot in the car belonging to accused No.10 bearing number
KA No.50-4498 and murdered the deceased by assaulting
him with deadly weapons. It is stated that even accused
No.3 was at the spot, who had arrived at the place in a two
wheeler bearing number KA-06-EZ-6702. It is further
stated that after coming to know the murder of the
deceased accused Nos.2, 11 and 12 absconded from Srivari
Lodge in a Swift car bearing number KA-02-MF-5154. The
appellant-accused No.2 who was in judicial custody has
filed bail application and same came to be rejected by the
Sessions Court by impugned order, which is challenged in
this appeal.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for appellant-
accused No.2 would contend that the FIR has been
registered against unknown assailants, the name of this
appellant-accused No.2 is not stated in the FIR. Accused
No.1 is having motive with regard to business rivalry, as
deceased had filed cases against the accused No.1. The
deceased has gambling adda, accused No.1 had given
complaint regarding gambling adda of the deceased.
Assailants are accused Nos.1, 4 to 7, accused No.8 is driver
who took accused No.1, 4 to 7 in the car to the spot. The
only accusation against this appellant-accused No.2 is that
he joined with other accused persons at dinner on
27.04.2022 in the Form House at Bikkegudda Village in
Gubbi Taluk and conspired to kill the deceased. The further
allegation against this appellant-accused No.2 and other
accused persons is conspiracy to kill the deceased in room
No.106 of Srivari Lodge, Nitturu on 15.06.2022. The further
allegation is accused No.2 has arranged accused Nos.4 and
5 at the instance of accused No.1 to assault the deceased.
The further allegation against this appellant-accused No.2 is
that after the incident he absconded from the lodge along
with accused Nos.11 and 12. He contended that there is no
call record of mobile phone of this appellant-accused No.2
that he had contacted with accused Nos.4 and 5 and told
them to assault the deceased at the instance of the accused
No.1. He further submits that accused Nos.9 to 16 have
been granted bail and they are similarly placed to that of
this appellant-accused- No.2. The confessional statement
of appellant-accused No.2 has been recorded by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and it is not having evidenciary
value as it is not recorded by the Superintendent of Police
as required under the Provisions of Section 19 of the KCOC
Act. He contends that the said aspect has been considered
by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.1608/2022 filed by accused No.9.
Therefore, the said confessional statement made by
accused No.2 is in admissible. He further contends that bail
application of this appellant-accused No.2 came to be
rejected on the ground that he is having criminal
antecedents and there are 16 criminal cases lodged against
this appellant-accused No.2. He further argued that merely
pendecy of criminal cases is not ground to reject the bail
application of the appellant-accused No.2 and on that point
he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Prabhakar Tewari Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another1 and Mohammad Azan
Khan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh2. He further submits that
the voluntary statement of co-accused is not substantial
evidence, on that point he placed reliance of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna VS
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue in
Intelligence3. He further contends that confession made
to the Police is inadmissible and confession of co-accused
(2020) 22 SCC 648
2022 SCC OnLine SC 653
(2018) 8 SCC 271
against other accused is inadmissible and on that point he
placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs State of Gujarat
and Another4. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the
appeal and grant bail to the appellant-accused No.2.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that this appellant-accused No.2 is
main conspirator with accused No.1 to do away the life of
the deceased. This appellant-accused No.2 met accused
No.1 in jail at Bangalore and as per request of accused
No.1, he arranged accused Nos. 4 and 5 to assault the
deceased and also made arrangements for weapons. He
contends that there are criminal antecedents and this
appellant-accused No.2 is involved in 16 criminal cases. If
appellant-accused No.2 is granted bail there is threat to the
prosecution witnesses. Charge sheet materials show prima
facie case against this appellant-accused No.2 for offences
(2019) 16 SCC 547
alleged against him. Considering these aspects, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of
this appellant-accused No.2 by impugned order which does
not call for interference by this Court. With this, he prays
for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for
appellant-accused No.2 and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State, this Court has perused
the impugned order and charge sheet records.
8. On going through the charge sheet papers it is
clear that there is no specific allegation against accused
No.2 regarding his direct involvement in the alleged crime
and he was not a member of the group which said to have
caused assault on the deceased. The confession statement
of this appellant-accused No.2 has been recorded by the
Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as
per provisions contained under Section 19 of the KCOC Act.
The confession statement of accused is admissible, if it is
recorded by the Officer not below the rank of the
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, whether confession
statement of this appellant-accused No.2 is recorded by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police is admissible or not is a
matter of the Trial. The bail application of this appellant-
accused No.2 has been rejected on the ground that he is
having criminal antecedents and there are 16 criminal cases
registered against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of the Prabhakar Tewari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another(supra) and Mohammad Azan Khan Vs
State of Uttar Pradesh(supra) has held that merely
pendency of criminal cases against accused is not a ground
to reject his bail application and in case of Mohammad
Azan Khan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh(supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to the accused who is
involved in 87 criminal cases. Therefore, merely because
appellant-accused No.2 is involved in 16 criminal cases is
not a ground to reject his bail application.
9. The accusation against this appellant-accused
No.2 is that he is one of the leaders of the organized crime
with accused Nos.1 to 4 and 5 in order to murder the
deceased. He conspired with other accused is matter of the
Trial and for that prosecution has to examine nearly 228
charge sheet witnesses. The apprehension of the
prosecution is that if the appellant-accused No.2 is granted
bail there is threat to the prosecution witnesses can be met
with by imposing stringent conditions.
10. The appellant-accused No.2 has made out
grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
bail.
In the result, the following
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed in
Special C.C.No.2877/2023 by the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. The bail application
is allowed and the appellant - accused No.2 is ordered to
be released on bail in Crime No. 131/2022 of Gubbi Police
Station (pending in Special C.C.No.2877/2023) subject to
the following conditions:
(i) The appellant - accused No.2 shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakh only), with two
surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The appellant - accused No.2 shall not
threaten the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant - accused No.2 shall not
tamper the prosecution witnesses
directly or indirectly.
(iv) The appellant - accused No.2 shall
appear before the Trial Court on all
dates of hearing unless exempted and
co-operate in speedy disposal of the
case.
(v) The appellant - accused No.2 shall not
involve in commission of any similar
offences and on FIR being registered,
the Prosecution is at liberty to seek
cancellation of his bail.
(vi) The appellant - accused No.2 shall not
leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court
without permission of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP.
