(Prayer: This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in crime no.353/2024 and in spl.c.c.no.2055/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 37, 120(b), 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201, 302, 506 read with section 149 of IPC, Section 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000.)

Cav Order:

1. This petition is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Spl.C.C.No.2055/2024 (Crime No.353/2024 of Banaswadi Police Station) pending on the file of Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 37, 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201, 302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (for short ‘KCOCA’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.SPP for respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per averments of the complaint filed by the wife of deceased, she came to know about the incident through Manu (CW.2) that 4 to 5 unknown persons assaulted the deceased. The said Manu (CW.2) is an eye witness to the incident, but he has disclosed the names of assailants to wife of the deceased. In the spot mahazar  as  well  as  requisition  for  P.M.  examination, there is no mention of any assailants and assault is stated to be by unknown persons. CW.2 in his statement recorded on 07.05.2024 has disclosed the names of the assailants and in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 22.05.2025 has named accused persons and also stated that he informed the incident to the complainant. Considering the fact that CW.2 has not informed the names of assailants to the complainant itself indicate that he was not knowing the names of assailants at the time of incident. In the inquest mahazar name of accused No.10 – Pavan has also been stated as assailants and he has been granted bail. The CCTV footage stated to have been collected has not been furnished to CW.2. Petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and no case is pending against them and therefore, there is no compliance of Section 2(d) of KCOCA. The test identification parade has not been conducted. Filing of more  than  one  charge  sheet  is  required  for  invoking provisions of KCOCA. On that point he placed reliance on a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.1129/2021 c/w Crl.A.Nos. 1103/2021 and 1264/2021 DD 05.10.2021).

4. The accused person who is in judicial custody for two years alleged to have committed offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024 INSC 604) wherein it is observed as under:

                  “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

5. Petitioners are aged about 20 years and on that ground they are entitled for grant of bail. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4594/2023 disposed on 16.08.2023.

6. The overt act alleged against the petitioners are not fatal injuries. They have assaulted on hand and back of the deceased and therefore, they can be granted bail.  On that point, he placed reliance on a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7435/2020 disposed on 10.12.2020.

7. Petitioner No.1 is a student and therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail. On this point he placed reliance on a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7462/2014 disposed on 06.01.2015. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP would contend that deceased and accused No.3 were having real estate enemity. Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 conspired with accused No.3 to eliminate deceased. The bikes used by the petitioners were standing in the name of their mother and sister respectively and they were seized at their instance. The alleged incident has been recorded in CCTC and footage has been collected. In the said CCTV movement of 10 persons holding weapon is recorded. CW.2, the eye witness in his statement before the police and also in statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated the overt acts of these petitioners assaulting the deceased with deadly weapons on his vital part. These petitioners have used the Bikes by removing number plate. The mobile location of the petitioners indicate their presence on the spot at the time of incident. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.6 assaulted the deceased with long- chopper on his back. Petitioner No.2/accused No.7 assaulted with knife on the head of the deceased. Serious overt acts are alleged against the petitioners. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The PM report indicate that the cause of death is due to multiple injuries sustained. The inquest mahazar indicate that the deceased has sustained 31 external injuries. Accused No.10 who has been granted bail is not a assailant. Petitioners even though they knew that other accused are having criminal antecedents, they co-operated with them and taken active part in commission of offence. If the petitioners are granted bail there is a threat to CW.2 who is the eye witness and other prosecution witnesses. With these she prayed to reject the petition.

9. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

10. The Banaswadi Police registered a case in Crime No.353/2024 against 4 to 5 unknown persons in connection with murder of D.Karthigeyan based on a complaint lodged by the wife of deceased on 07.05.2024. The said case came to be transferred to Organised Crime Wing, CCB, Bengaluru for further investigation. Thereafter the investigating agency invoked the provisions of KCOCA. On completion of investigation, the ACP, OCW, CCB, Bengaluru laid  charge  sheet  against  13  accused  persons  for  the offence under Sections 37, 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 201, 302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and (4) of the KCOCA and Section 27(3) of Arms Act.

11. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.3 who is a rowdy sheeter in Banaswadi Police Station, has formed an organized crime syndicate for having control in the area of Banaswadi, Hennur and Ramamurthynagar and that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in committing the crime in the case i.e. murder of Karthigeyan and executed the plan with the assistance of other accused persons. Petitioners / Accused Nos.6 and 7 are residents of the area wherein Accused No.3 is living. Accused No.7 is a drop-out from the school and that Accused No.6 was got introduced to Accused No.3 through Accused No.8. Accused Nos.6 and 7 joined the organized crime syndicate of Accused No.3 with an intention of earning money through illegal means.  That on 07.05.2024 accused Nos.1 to 10 joined together in a room taken on rent by accused No.3 for the purpose of committing murder of the deceased and based on information provided by accused No.8, all of them followed the deceased in different vehicles and committed the crime. It is the specific case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.6 and 7 were directly involved in the alleged crime and that they have assaulted the deceased with machete and knife respectively.

12. The vehicles used by the petitioners and weapons used by them for commission of crime have been seized at the instance of petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7. Petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 have given their confession statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru South, wherein they have admitted their participation in the crime. The said confession statement is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA.

13. Accused Nos.8 to 10, 12 and 13 who are granted bail by the Special Court is on the ground that they have not actively participated in the commission of crime.

14. CW.2 is the eye witness to the incident and he was moving with the deceased on his bike when accused persons dashed their vehicle to the motor cycle of the deceased. At that time, CW.2 also fell down and he is the witness to the incident. CW.2 in his statement recorded on 07.05.2024 by the IO and also in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically named these petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 having assaulted the deceased with machete and knife. The petitioners have assaulted with the said weapons on the vital part of the body of the deceased. PM report indicate that there are 31 external injuries over the dead body of the deceased. The cause of death of deceased is due to multiple injuries sustained. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and they knowingly participated in the alleged crime with an intention to earn money by illegal means knowing that other accused persons are having criminal antecedents. If the petitioners are granted bail, there is a threat to CW.2 and other prosecution witnesses.

15. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners have not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed.