Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 782 (KAR)

Mallesha v. State Of Karnataka

2014-09-04

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to dispose of them by common order. 2. Crl.P.4227/2014 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 389, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.183/2014. 3. Crl.P.4466/2014 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 389, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.183/2014. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused persons in respect of both petitions and also the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State in respect of both petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 during the course of his arguments submitted that name of the petitioner/accused No.3 is not at all mentioned in the complaint as well as FIR registered in the case. He has submitted that it is only in the remand application dated 21.06.2014 name of the petitioner/Mallesha has been shown as accused No.3. Looking to the said remand application, it is stated that accused No.3 himself came to the police station and was arrested and his voluntary statement has been recorded. He has submitted that as per the prosecution material, it is stated that the statement of one Dinesh has been recorded on 20.06.2014 and he has stated about the involvement of the petitioner. He has submitted that said Dinesh after seeing accused No.3 in police custody has stated in his statement that he has seen accused No.3 on 19.06.2014 at 7.20 p.m. itself and if it is true, then nothing prevented the complainant when he filed the compliant on 20.06.2014 to mention the name of accused No.3 in his complaint itself. Regarding the recovery of 12 items and the alleged conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons, it is the matter to be ascertained during the course of trial after recording evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 has also submitted that there is no test identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer to establish the identity of accused No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 has also submitted that there is no test identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer to establish the identity of accused No.3. Learned counsel has submitted accused No.3 is a Police Constable and is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and also ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for interrogation. He has also submitted that so far as involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution and has also submitted that the alleged offences are all triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner/accused No.3 may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 has relied upon the decisions reported in 2005(1) Crimes 113 (SC) and also the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.P.2141/2014. 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as accused No.4 is concerned absolutely there is no material to show her involvement in the commission of alleged offence, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1, which is not binding on the accused No.4. So far as accused No.5 is concerned, the materials show that before going to the flat of the complainant she got an appointment by consulting the complainant over mobile phone and then only it is alleged that she went to him on 16.06.2014. He has submitted that the complaint averments itself shows that on 17.06.2014 again accused No.5 went to the house of the complainant along with her friend Sanjana, and when they asked for drinks, complainant gave them vodka and ice cubes. He has submitted that the further averments in the compliant shows that complainant spent some time with both of them i.e., accused No.4 and Sanjana. Thereafter, he went to toilet and thereafter he was taking rest in the room. In the meanwhile, door bell was ranged and when complainant went and opened the door some people saying that one is from CCB accompanied with other two persons came inside his house. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Section 114 of Evidence Act, the conduct of the complainant before and after the alleged incident is also material. In the meanwhile, door bell was ranged and when complainant went and opened the door some people saying that one is from CCB accompanied with other two persons came inside his house. Learned counsel has submitted that as per Section 114 of Evidence Act, the conduct of the complainant before and after the alleged incident is also material. He has submitted that so far as the alleged demand of Rs.1 Crore by the persons, who are said to be from the CCB police and the cameraman, petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are totally unconnected and it is also not the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.4 and 5 have demanded the ransom amount from the complainant. Hence, he has submitted that the materials placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to show the involvement of accused Nos.4 and 5 in the alleged offences. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 has further submitted that in the statement of Dinesh, he has stated that on 19.06.2014 he has seen the petitioners along with other accused persons sitting in the car belonging to accused No.4 is not at all connected with the alleged offence and it will not implicate the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in the alleged offences. Learned counsel has submitted that when according to the complainant these things have happened on 16.06.2014 and 17.06.2014 why he waited till 20.06.2014 and why not lodged the complaint immediately, that too being a doctor and responsible person. Hence, submitted that this also prima-facie shows that there is false implication of accused Nos.4 and 5 in the alleged offences. He has submitted that petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are women and their case comes under the proviso of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has also submitted that the alleged offences, are punishable with the maximum imprisonment of 10 years and they are triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, he has submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 may be enlarged on bail. 9. As against this, the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State during the course of his arguments submitted that regarding the involvement of all these three petitioners along with other accused persons, there are CCTV footages. Hence, he has submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 may be enlarged on bail. 9. As against this, the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State during the course of his arguments submitted that regarding the involvement of all these three petitioners along with other accused persons, there are CCTV footages. He has submitted that petitioner/accused No.3, who went to the flat of the complaint stating that he is a Police from CCB Police Station has been identified by witness Dinseh and the said Dinesh has given his statement on 20.06.2014, wherein he has stated that he has seen accused No.3 along with other accused persons in the car, which was nearby the Fortune Hotel at Cunningham Crescent Road on 19.06.2014 at about 7.20 p.m. Learned Spl.PP has also submitted that on 20.06.2014 after seeing the accused No.3 in the Police Station, said Dinesh identified him that he is the same person, who was along with other accused persons sitting in the blue colour car belonging to accused No.4. He has also submitted that the Investigating Officer has recovered 12 items at the instance of accused No.3 from his house in which the ID card belonging to the complainant has also been seized. Hence, he has submitted that these materials show the involvement of the petitioner/accused No.3 in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that materials produced in the case i.e., footages of CCTV camera also shows the involvement of accused Nos.4 and 5 in the alleged offence. 10. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that complainant has stated in his complaint about accused No.5 that she came to his house on 16.06.2014 and again on 17.06.2014. Hence, he has submitted that the allegations in the complaint shows that all the accused persons i.e., accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired and made the complainant to spend some time with accused No.5 and another lady Sanjana and taken the photographs and blackmailing him and demanded Rs.1 Crore from the complainant. Hence, he has submitted that the allegations in the complaint shows that all the accused persons i.e., accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired and made the complainant to spend some time with accused No.5 and another lady Sanjana and taken the photographs and blackmailing him and demanded Rs.1 Crore from the complainant. He has further submitted that materials also show that accused No.3 along with other accused persons went to Fortis Hospital, where the complainant was working and told the complainant that he has to pay their share of Rs.10 Lakhs stating that they are having the original video recordings of complainant with the ladies and if, he pay the amount they will return the said original recordings with the ladies accused No.5 and another girl Sanjana. Learned Spl. PP has submitted that the matter is still under investigation accused Nos.4 and 5 are absconding and it is necessary to arrest them and to interrogate them. Hence, submitted that at this stage petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 8. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and the CD File produced by the learned Spl.PP containing investigation materials and also perused the objection statement filed on behalf of the respondent-state. Looking to the complaint, it is by one (Prof.)N.Chandrashekar, MD and complaint allegations in brief that he received a call from a girl Sona/accused No.5 to meet him on 14.06.2014. She went to his flat on 16.06.2014, No.2072 at High Point No.2, 7th floor, Palace Road, Bangalore and tried to get close to him which he refused, she left the flat. Again on the next day i.e. on 17.06.2014 at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m she along with her friend Sanjana went to the flat of the complainant. On their request complainant offered vodka with ice cubes. Complainant spent some time with them and as he was uneasy he went and lay down in a room and somebody ranged the bell, when the complainant went and opened the door some persons stating that they are from CCB came inside the house inspected him and in spite of the objection by the complainant they did video shooting. Complainant spent some time with them and as he was uneasy he went and lay down in a room and somebody ranged the bell, when the complainant went and opened the door some persons stating that they are from CCB came inside the house inspected him and in spite of the objection by the complainant they did video shooting. There is also allegation in the complaint that the person said to be from CCB demanded for ransom to the tune of Rs.1 Crore taking the name of ACP with him, by showing a video clipping of complainant with Sona in inebriated position. The complainant drove them in his car to his house at Vasant Nagar and paid Rs.1 Lakh to them i.e., to the person said to be from CCB and two media persons. The CCB person forcibly took the SD Card containing the video clipping in respect of the complainant and it is with the said person. The further allegation that Kumar from TV9 accompanied by a cameraman on Thursday night i.e., 19.06.2014 went to Fortis Hospital, where the complainant was working and gave the mobile number and told the complainant to pay him Rs.10 Lakhs for return of all the original recordings. It is further alleged that on 19.06.2014 Kumar called the complainant to meet him. The complainant called to his flat at 2.30 p.m. but Kumar called the complainant to meet him outside the gate or in the van for which complainant did not oblige, then, it was agreed to meet at Fortis at 5.00 p.m. Kumar and cameraman demanded for higher amount for which the complainant did not oblige. In view of the said events the complainant lodged the complaint against Sona and the group to take action against them in accordance with law. On the basis of said complaint, case has been registered firstly against Sona, Kumar and others. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has arrayed the petitioner/Mallesha as accused No.3. 9. Looking to the complaint averments and other materials placed on record. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.4 Smt.Nayanakrishna went to the flat of the complainant and demanded ransom amount from the complainant. Her name is also not specifically mentioned in the complaint and even in the FIR also her name was not shown. 9. Looking to the complaint averments and other materials placed on record. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused No.4 Smt.Nayanakrishna went to the flat of the complainant and demanded ransom amount from the complainant. Her name is also not specifically mentioned in the complaint and even in the FIR also her name was not shown. But it is the contention of the prosecution that on 19.06.2014 said accused No.4 was seen in the blue colour car nearby the rear side gate of the Fortune Hotel at Cunningham Crescent road at about 7.20 p.m. In this connection prosecution relied upon the statement of one Dinseh, Police constable, which is said to have been recorded on 20.06.2014. But even looking to his statement, it is only mentioned that in the said car two females and two male persons were sitting and their names were not specially mentioned in the statement of Dinesh. It is true that as per the case of the prosecution the said car has been seized and it belongs to accused No.4. Only on the basis of the recovery of the car and in the absence of other prima-facie material it cannot be inferred at this stage that accused No.4 has not made out the case for her release. 10. Regarding accused No.5/Sona, it is true in the complaint her name is specifically mentioned. But compliant averments show that on 14.06.2014 she called the complainant over phone and sought an appointment and only on his permission she went to his flat on 16.06.2014. The further allegations shows that when she wanted to become close to the complainant, he refused and on the next day again she went along with her friend Sanjana and when they asked the drinks complainant supplied them vodka with ice cubes. It is also mentioned that he spent some time with them and then went to his room and lay down. In the mean while, bell was ranged, and when he opened, persons said to be from CCB and the media came and entered his house and started video shooting in spite of his protest and demanded Rs.1 Crore to return his video clippings and Sona, who are seen in inebriated position. Even according to the complaint averments it is not the specific allegation against accused No.5/Sona that she demanded ransom from the complainant. Even according to the complaint averments it is not the specific allegation against accused No.5/Sona that she demanded ransom from the complainant. But the allegation is against the persons, who are said to be from CCB police and the media persons. But the averments in the compliant that the complainant supplied them vodka and ice cubes and he spent sometime with them and this conduct of the complainant is also the material fact to be taken into consideration while appreciating the bail application filed by accused Nos.4 and 5. 11. Accused Nos.4 and 5 have denied the allegations made against them in the bail petition and they have contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case and also undertaken that they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are women and their case comes under the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 12. With regard to the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned material collected during the investigation so far goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.3 that on 20.06.2014 CCB inspector informed him to come to his office and when he went to the said office and phoned to CCB inspector he informed him that he is in High Ground Police Station and asked him to come to the High Grounds Police Station and he went to Police Station at 3.00 p.m. and gave his voluntary statement to the effect that he will take the police to the place where he has kept the remaining amount and also to the persons to whom the amount has been paid and he will also show the other four persons, who were with him. The materials also show that from the house of the petitioner/accused No.3 twelve articles have been seized and even the identity card belonging to complainant is also seized out of the twelve items. Perusing the complaint averments, the complainant has mentioned that on 17.06.2014 when the persons came stating that they are from CCB Police and media, taken away the SD card belonging to him. Perusing the complaint averments, the complainant has mentioned that on 17.06.2014 when the persons came stating that they are from CCB Police and media, taken away the SD card belonging to him. It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/accused No.3, who is working in the Police Department went to the house of the complainant afterwards and he demanded for the payment of Rs.1 Crore, otherwise he will disclose the video clipping of the complainant with Sona in inebriated position. So such serious allegations are made against petitioner/accused No.3 and investigation of the case is still going on. It is the contention of the prosecution that Investigating Officer has to collect some more material and has to file the charge sheet in the matter. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 reported in 2005(1) Crimes 113 (SC) and also the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by this Court in 2141/2014. Looking to the facts and circumstances in those two decisions and facts and circumstances involved in the case on hand, they are not one and the same hence, they will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner/accused No.3 for getting him released on bail at this stage. However, as the investigation is still going on, without expressing the opinion of this Court about the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner/accused No.3 to be released on bail, his petition is to be disposed of for the present. 13. Accordingly, Crl.P.No.4227/2014 is disposed of for the present with liberty to petitioner/accused No.3 to renew his request after completion of the investigation and filing of charge sheet. Crl.P.No.4466/2014 is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 384, 389, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.183/2014, subject to the following conditions: i. Each petitioner i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 has to execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/-and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii. Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for. ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii. Petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for. have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.