Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2314 (KAR)

Channakeshav v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2020-11-30

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2020
ORDER : Mohammad Nawaz, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the concerned Investigation Officer to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 135/2016 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, which was initially registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against unknown persons and charge-sheeted against 6 accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent-CBI and perused the entire material in record. 3. The charge-sheet material disclose that on account of a land dispute and previous enmity, accused 1 conspired with accused 2 to 6 to do away with the life of deceased by name Yogishgouda Goudar and on 15-6-2016 between 7.30 and 7.45 a.m., when the deceased came to 'Uday Gym and Fitness Centre', situated on Sapthapur Road, Dharwad, the accused persons assaulted him indiscriminately with deadly weapons like jambiya, koytha, rod etc. and after committing his murder sped away in motorcycles. 4. In the course of trial of the case before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No. 50/2017, one Gurunathagoudar-CW. 19, brother of the deceased, examined as P.W. 58 alleged that the investigation was not properly conducted by the State Police and also gave a complaint to the Government, requesting to handover the case to the CBI for further investigation. Pursuant to that, an order was passed by the State Government on 6-9-2019 directing respondent-CBI to conduct further investigation of the case. As such, after taking over the investigation under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, respondent-CBI registered the FIR vide No. RC.17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR on 24-9-2019. During the course of further investigation, respondent-CBI came across several lapses committed by the investigating agency including the lapses committed by the present petitioner, who had registered the case and conducted initial part of investigation. On completion of further investigation by the CBI, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 20-5-2020 against 8 more accused arraigning them as accused 7 to 14. 5. The respondent-CBI also sought approval from the Government of Karnataka under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to prosecute the present petitioner and another Police official. On completion of further investigation by the CBI, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 20-5-2020 against 8 more accused arraigning them as accused 7 to 14. 5. The respondent-CBI also sought approval from the Government of Karnataka under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to prosecute the present petitioner and another Police official. Pursuant to the said request, the Government by Order dated 15-9-2020, accorded approval to conduct enquiry or investigation into the allegations against the officials. In view of the above developments, the petitioner, apprehending his arrest by the respondent-CBI, approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by an Order dated 29-10-2020 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 548/2020. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. The Investigation taken up by the petitioner at the very inception was in usual course of his duty. The petitioner who was the Station House Officer at the relevant point of time has registered the case on the complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased against unknown persons. Accused 1 to 6 were arrested by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad. Petitioner has conducted investigation only for a period of 23 days. On 8-7-2016 he was transferred and the investigation was handed over to another Police Inspector. He submits that the petitioner has attended before the respondent whenever he was summoned to do so and he has provided the information about the entire case. He submits that the petitioner is a responsible Police Officer now working in the Office of the Commissionerate of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad and he is a law abiding citizen. There are no remarks or any black-spot in his entire service. He submits that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship as his entire career will be ruined. He is a permanent resident of Dharwad and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition. 7. The learned Counsel for respondent-CBI has filed statement of objections. He is a permanent resident of Dharwad and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition. 7. The learned Counsel for respondent-CBI has filed statement of objections. He contends that after taking over further investigation of the case by the respondent-CBI, it was revealed that apart from the accused who were charge-sheeted by the local police, there were other accused persons who actually assaulted and executed the murder. The petitioner being the Investigating Officer, has left out those accused and arrested accused 1 to 6 against whom charge-sheet was filed. However, it is revealed that another 8 persons were also involved. As such, the CBI after taking over further investigation, has filed additional charge-sheet against them. He submits that the petitioner being the Investigating Officer of the case has handled initial and crucial part of the investigation up to 8-7-2016 before he was transferred. He further contends that the further investigation has revealed several lapses in the investigation conducted by the petitioner which shows that no proper investigation was done by comparing the accused persons with the CCTV footage etc. It is his contention that the omissions and commissions of the petitioner in investigation of the case were deliberate with the criminal intention to favour the accused and scuttle the investigation and submits that the further investigation has revealed that the petitioner and his supervisory officer have obtained illegal gratification from the accused and others involved in this connection. Therefore, at the request of respondent-CBI the Government of Karnataka has accorded approval to conduct enquiry/investigation into the allegations against the culprits. He submits that the final report is yet to be filed and investigation is at a crucial stage and therefore, enlarging the petitioner on bail will affect the course of further investigation and there are chances of petitioner absconding and also coming in the way of investigation by tampering the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was the Station House Officer at Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station during the relevant point of time i.e., on 15-6-2016, on which date the complaint was lodged by one Smt. Mallawagoudar, regarding murder of her husband by name Yogishgouda Goudar. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was the Station House Officer at Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station during the relevant point of time i.e., on 15-6-2016, on which date the complaint was lodged by one Smt. Mallawagoudar, regarding murder of her husband by name Yogishgouda Goudar. On the basis of the first information report, a case was registered in Crime No. 135/2016 of the said Police Station against unknown persons under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter, a team of investigation was constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad. On 17-6-2016, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad apprehended accused 1 to 5 and on 20-6-2016 accused 6 was apprehended. The material on record further disclose that the present petitioner was working as a Police Inspector in the said Police Station and he conducted initial part of the investigation till he was transferred on 8-7-2016. Subsequently, charge-sheet came to be filed on 9-9-2016 against accused 1 to 6. About 63 witnesses were cited in the said charge-sheet. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, case was numbered as S.C. No. 50/2017. Subsequent development took place by virtue of an order passed by the Government of Karnataka handing over the case to the CBI for further investigation. Meanwhile, the present petitioner who was shown as C.W. 61 in the said charge-sheet was summoned as a witness in the sessions trial and he was examined as P.W. 59 on 27-4-2019, 13-5-2019, 15-5-2019 and 7-6-2019. He was subjected to cross-examination on 11-6-2019, 12-6-2019, 17-6-2019 and 18-6-2019. The petitioner was summoned by the CBI officials and he appeared before them in the month of September 2019, May 2020, June 2020 and August 2020, as per the submission made by the learned Counsel for petitioner, which is not disputed. Petitioner being the then Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station took over investigation of the case and he handled initial part of the investigation up to 8-7-2016 before the investigation was transferred to another officer. The allegations are that though several other accused persons were also involved, the said persons were not arraigned as accused by the petitioner. Petitioner being the then Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station took over investigation of the case and he handled initial part of the investigation up to 8-7-2016 before the investigation was transferred to another officer. The allegations are that though several other accused persons were also involved, the said persons were not arraigned as accused by the petitioner. It is alleged that there are several lapses committed by the present petitioner in conducting investigation and the omissions and commissions by this petitioner in investigation of the case were deliberate with criminal intention to favour the accused and to scuttle the investigation. It is also contended that now the Government has approved sanction to conduct investigation in respect of allegations made against the petitioner and another official, who in their official position have obtained illegal gratification for improper conduct of investigation. 9. As noted supra, petitioner registered the case as he was the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station and conducted investigation till 8-7-2016, which is not disputed. The petitioner was then transferred and investigation was handed over to another officer. It cannot be said at this stage that during such time petitioner has either colluded with any of the persons having interest in the outcome of the result of the case or deliberately committed any omissions or commissions with a criminal intention to favour the accused. However, the same has to be proved in due course. Admittedly, on four occasions summons were issued to the petitioner by the respondent-CBI and the petitioner has appeared before them for the purpose of enquiry. Even though it is alleged that the petitioner has obtained illegal gratification for conducting improper investigation, said allegations are yet to be established. The petitioner has a reasonable apprehension of his arrest by the respondent-police. The petitioner is presently working as Police Inspector in the Police Commissionerate, Hubballi-Dharwad. There are no previous complaints or remarks against him. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. As such, this Court is of the view that the arrest and detention of the petitioner-accused is not warranted and he may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer/respondent-CBI and cooperate with the investigation of the case. 10. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. As such, this Court is of the view that the arrest and detention of the petitioner-accused is not warranted and he may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer/respondent-CBI and cooperate with the investigation of the case. 10. It is well-settled that law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest and it would lead to many serious consequences. Usual anxiety of investigating agency is to ensure that an accused should fully cooperate with them and be available as and when they require him. An order of anticipatory bail does not in anyway, directly or indirectly, takeaway from Investigating Officer his power and right to fully investigate into charge made against an accused. In the instant case when the petitioner has already appeared and cooperated with the respondent, whenever called upon to do so, then custodial interrogation is not warranted. Hence, the relief sought by petitioner-accused can be granted by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Respondent-CBI shall enlarge the petitioner-accused in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 135/2016 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, now registered as FIR in No. RC.17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR by respondent-Police, subject to the following conditions: (1) Petitioner-accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Only] with two likesum sureties to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (2) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating agency. 2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakhs Only] with two likesum sureties to the satisfaction of the said Officer. (2) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating agency. (3) Petitioner shall make himself available for the purpose of investigation/enquiry as and when directed and he shall cooperate with the investigation. (4) Petitioner shall not leave India till conclusion of trial without the previous permission of the Court and he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the Investigating Officer. Observations made hereinabove shall be confined to the disposal of this petition and the same shall not come in the way of investigation/enquiry or trial of the case.