Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 599 (KAR)

Anil Kumar U. R. v. State of Karnataka

2016-08-03

B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

body2016
ORDER : B. Sreenivase Gowda, J. The petitioner (A5) has filed this petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to release him on bail in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2016 registered by the respondent-police, now with CID Police, based on the complaint dated 21-3-2016 lodged by the Joint Director (Examination) Pre-University Board, 18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 381 and 201 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 23 and 115 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Section 3 of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, 'KCOC Act, 2000') and pending on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Designated Court). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the material so far collected by the prosecution do not disclose direct involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offences alleged. He submits, as respondent failed to complete the investigation within the prescribed time, they deliberately invoked the provisions of KCOC Act, 2000 with an intention to harass the accused and to deny them bail, in the event of approaching the Court for bail. He submits, according to the prosecution, it is Santhosh Agasimani (A15), who opened the treasury of the Sub-Registrar/Sub-treasury of Hangal, with the help of A14-Kumaraswamy, where the question papers of Chemistry subject of PUC examinations were kept and thereafter with the help of A1 (Manjunath), they took photographs of the question papers through mobile phone and then transferred the same into laptop and made number of copies. He submits, according to the prosecution it is A13 who collected money from the parents of the students who appeared for PUC examinations, who wanted to have copies of the question papers in order to facilitate their children to score more marks in the examination. It is his further submission that, there is no direct or specific allegations so far as this petitioner-Anil Kumar U.R (A5) is concerned. He submits, the prosecution mistaking this petitioner as A7, who is B. Anil Kumar, has falsely implicated this petitioner into the case. He invited the attention of the Court to Para 8 of the Statement of Objections filed by the respondent. He submits, the prosecution mistaking this petitioner as A7, who is B. Anil Kumar, has falsely implicated this petitioner into the case. He invited the attention of the Court to Para 8 of the Statement of Objections filed by the respondent. He submits, the petitioners-A5 and A4 were summoned by CID on 31-3-2016 and 1-4-2016, as the petitioners-A5 and A4 failed to attend the call of the CID, on subsequent date i.e., 2-4-2016 they were arrested on 6-4-2016 and since then the petitioner has been in Judicial Custody. He further submits, the petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court and therefore he prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioner. 4. Sri P.M. Nawaz, the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits, the offences committed by the petitioner and other accused persons are very serious in nature; the crime is still under investigation; the State considering the gravity of the offences, entrusted the matter to CID and now the CID is still investigating the crime. He further submits, all the accused persons by forming a syndicate got the question papers of the PUC examination leaked. The petitioner and some of those accused, who are not the parents of the students who appeared PUC examination have done the said act for monetary gain and those accused who are parents of the students who appeared for PUC examinations have done the above acts to facilitate their children to score more marks in the examination so that they could get seats for Technical Courses easily. As such the accused have committed the aforesaid offences. Therefore, if petitioner is released on bail, he would certainly interfere with the investigations thereby hamper the investigation and in such an event, there would not be a fair trial. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail petition. 5. By way of reply the, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, some of the accused have already challenged the invocation of the KCOC Act, 2000 by filing writ petitions and have obtained stay for the invocation of the KCOC Act, 2000 to the case and accused 2,3, 6 and 7 have been granted bail by this Court in Cri. P. No. 4251 of 2016 and connected matters. 6. P. No. 4251 of 2016 and connected matters. 6. Per contra the learned SPP submits, petitioner has not filed any such writ petition challenging the invocation of the KCOC Act. He submits the bail granted to those accused, who are parents of the students who had appeared for PUC examination, would not enure to the benefit of this petitioner, since he is not the parent of any student, who had appeared for die examination and petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of parity and he prays for rejection of the petition. 7. The case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the statement of objections of respondent is that, after PUC Science Stream question papers reached the concerned Districts and Taluks, all the accused having conspired and formed a syndicate and in furtherance of the conspiracy, accused 15-Santhosh Agasimani, Second Division Assistant, Hangal Sub-Registry and accused 14-Kumara Swamy gained access to the strong room of the Sub-Registry and opened the question paper bundles and took the photographs of the same and put the bundles back as is where is. Later, accused No. 1-Manjunath helped A14 and A15 in taking printout of the question papers by using laptop and distributing those question papers to the other co-conspirators. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 who are parents of the children who appeared for II PUC examination collected the question papers from A1 by paying money to A13 to facilitate their children to score more marks in the examinations. A1 received an amount of Rs. 13 lakhs from A13, A4 and A5. 8. Petitioner herein received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each from Al. A1 got the question papers from the main accused who are accused No. 1, 9, 14 and 15. A6-Ranganath passed on the contents of the question papers to A3 and A7. A9-Shivakumariah alias Shivakumar is the leader - kingpin and active member. 9. It may be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has involved in similar offences on any earlier occasion like A9, A14, A15 and A16, who said to have committed similar offences, during the years 2008, 2011 and 2014. 10. It may also be recorded that A2, A3, A6 and A7 have been granted bail by this Court in Cri. P. No. 4251 of 2016 and other connected matters. 11. 10. It may also be recorded that A2, A3, A6 and A7 have been granted bail by this Court in Cri. P. No. 4251 of 2016 and other connected matters. 11. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his involvement in commission of the alleged offences. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has opened the treasury where the question papers were kept. It is also not their case that petitioner assisted A15 and A14 in any way in making copies of those question papers. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner knowing fully well the activity of the crime, organised crime syndicate not only remained silent about it but also actively aided and abated its unlawful activities by illegally procuring and distributing the leaked question papers for personal benefit, thereby has committed the offence of abatement as contemplated under Section 2(l)(a) of KCOC Act, 2000. It is further alleged that he has received Rs. 50,000/- from Al from out of the amount collected by A13 from the parents of the students, who appeared for the examination. 12. It may also be noted that in the subsequent Crime No. 48 of 2016 registered on 31-3-2016 by the respondent-police against all those persons including the petitioner, who are accused in the earlier Crime No. 37 of 2016, have been granted statutory bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate on account of non-filing of charge-sheet by the respondent, within the prescribed period of time. Nowhere in the statement of objections filed by the respondent, the prosecution has pointed-out the direct involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offences alleged. Further averments made in Para 8 of the statement of objection of respondent would not prima facie disclose direct involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged offences. Further, the petitioner is working as a permanent Physical Education Teacher at Pooma Pragna School in Sadashivanagar. If that is so, there is no apprehension that if he is released on bail, he will not be available for further investigation of the crime. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would interfere with the investigation and he may not extend his co-operation for further investigation of the crime, can be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER The petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would interfere with the investigation and he may not extend his co-operation for further investigation of the crime, can be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner-U.R. Anil Kumar (A5) is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2016 registered by the respondent-Malleshwaram Police, Bengaluru, against him for the aforesaid offences, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner as well as surety shall furnish their proof of address and identity such as voter card, aadhar card, driving licence, etc. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Police as and when he is called upon and extend full co-operation for further investigation of the crime, if any. (iv) The petitioner shall not indulge either in hampering the further investigation of the crime or tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if he is possessing, before the concerned Court and the same shall be kept in safe custody till conclusion of the trial of this case. (vi) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of. (vii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine reason. (viii) The petitioner shall also mark his attendance once in a week before the respondent-Police on every Sunday between 10.00 am to 5.00 p.m., till the filing of the final report. It is made clear that the State is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail in case of violation of any of the above conditions.