Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar A Alias Kalar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3195 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3210 OF 2025, 4969 OF 2025
IN CRL. P. No.3195/2025:
BETWEEN:
MOHAN V
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O VENKATESH MURTHY
R/AT WARD NO.27, MAGADI
ROAD, KAYARADODDI
RAMANAGARAM TOWN
RAMANAGARAM - 57151.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH CHOTA J, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
Digitally PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S
signed by REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
NANDINI M S
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
Location:
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA 2 . SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA
W/O LATE MAHESH
AGED 27 YEARS
LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM
NEAR PILEKAMMA TEMPLE
MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP A/W
SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT POLICE, PARAPPANAAGRAHARA POLICE, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGLAORE
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) OF INDIAN
ARMS ACT, SEC. 120B, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302,
307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212 AND 149 OF IPC, SEC. 3(2)(v, 3(2)(va)
OF SC / ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND EC. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) AND 4
OF THE KARNAAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000
(KCOCA).
IN CRL.P NO.3210/2025:
BETWEEN:
J. NAGARAJ @ WILSON GARDEN NAGA
S/O JAYARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.101, 1ST MAIN, 2ND
CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR
ADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 030.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SNADESH CHOUTA J, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA
W/O LATE MAHESH
AGED 27 YEARS
LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM
NEAR PILEKAMMA TEMPLE
MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 098.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJEGE, ADDL. SPP A/W
SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT POLICE, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) OF
INDIAN ARMS ACT, SEC. 120B, 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38,
302, 307, 109, 201, 202, 204, 212 AND 149 OF IPC, SEC. 3(2)(v,
3(2)(va) OF SC / ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND EC. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
AND 4 OF THE KARNAAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000
(KCOCA).
IN CRL.P NO.4969/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEEN KUMAR A @ KALAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O ANNAYAPPA
R/AT C/O CHAYA KUMARI
BEHIND SANDHYA THEATRE
MADIWALA, BANGALORE – 560 068
PARMANENT ADDRESS
KELAMANGALA G.B. KATTE
TAMILNADU – 635 113.
2. GOKUL
S/O GOPI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A NO.13/36, 3RD CROSS
NEAR BADAVARA SANGHA
NEAR MARY IMACULATE SCHOOL
LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 034.
3. SURESH BABU B
S/O VENKATA RAMANA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A NO.11, BALAGERE
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR S J OINNACLE APARTMENTS
VARTHUR, BENGALURU – 560 087.
4. DINESH ALIS DIO DINI
S/O ARJUN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARR/A NO.451, 8TH MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS, VIJAYA NAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 026.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
PARAPPPANA AGRAHARA P.S
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 . SMT. MEGHANA EREGOWDA
W/O LATE MAHESH
AGED 27 YEARS
LALBAG, SIDDAPURA SLUM
NEAR PILERAMMA TEMPLE
MAVALLI, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 098.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJEGE, ADDL. SPP A/W
SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC(FILED U/S 483 BNSS)
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.NO.226/2024 (CR.NO.345/2023) REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFEENCE P/U/S 25(1AA),25,(1B)(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT
AND SEC.120(B), 341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307,
109, 201, 202, 204, 212 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v),3(2)(va)
SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.3(1)(i),3(2),3(3),3(4) AND 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT 2000 (KCOCA).
THESE PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS
ON 11.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARCAV ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused nos.1, 2, 9, 11, 14 & 16 in Spl.CC.No.226/2024
pending before the Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime
No.345/2023 registered by Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections
25(1AA), 25(1B(b)) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, Sections 120B,
341, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, 37, 38, 302, 307, 109, 201,
202, 204, 212, 149 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 4
of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (for
short, ‘KCOCA’), are before this Court in these three petitions
filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.345/2023 was registered by Parappana
Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City, initially for the
offences punishable under Sections 25(1AA), 25(1B)(B) of
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARArms Act, 1959, Sections 341, 427, 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B,
149 of IPC, against Wilson Garden Naga (accused no.1) and
others based on the first information dated 04.08.2023
received from Meghana Eregowda who is the wife of deceased
Mahesh. During the course of investigation of the case, accused
nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 18.08.2023 and accused nos.9, 11,
14 & 16 were arrested on 06.08.2023. After completing
investigation, charge sheet was filed against 27 persons and
petitioners herein are arrayed as accused nos.1, 2, 9, 11, 14 &
16 in the charge sheet. Their bail applications filed before the
Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.226/2024 were rejected, and
therefore, they are before this Court in these three petitions.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused
nos.1 & 2 submits that accused nos.17 to 27 have been
enlarged on bail in the present case. Accused nos.3 to 16 are
the assailants and the allegation against accused nos.1 & 2 is
about conspiracy to murder deceased Mahesh. Accused nos.1 &
2 have been acquitted in all the criminal cases registered
against them except in one case which is registered against
them for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
IPC and the provisions of the KCOCA. The prosecution has
failed to produce any material against accused nos.1 & 2 which
would prima facie make out a case for conspiracy, motive or
financing the assailants to commit the murder. The prosecution
has cited 256 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and
the case is still at the stage of hearing before charge. He has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of PRABHAKAR TEWARI VS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. –
Crl.A.No.152/2020 disposed of on 24.01.2020, and also in the
case of SADDAM HUSSAIN M.K. & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA –
CRL.A.No.2717/2025 disposed of on 19.05.2025.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused nos.9,
11, 14 & 16 submits that the said accused have not been
identified by the alleged eye-witnesses to the case. Their name
is not found in the FIR. Accused nos.11 & 14 do not have any
criminal antecedents and accused nos.9 & 16 who were earlier
involved in another criminal case have been acquitted in the
said case. Except the present case, there is no other case
pending against accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16. The provisions of
KCOCA cannot be invoked as against them. They are in custody
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
for the last nearly two years and the trial in the case is yet to
commence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned SPP has opposed the petitions. He
submits that accused nos.1 & 2 have a notorious background
and they were involved in multiple criminal cases registered for
heinous offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364A,
etc. Considering that these accused persons are involved in
committing organized crimes and also since the charge sheet
witnesses are threatened by them, the provisions of KCOCA has
been invoked against them in the present case. In most of the
earlier criminal cases registered against them, they have been
acquitted for the reason that charge sheet witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution during
the course of investigation has produced material which prima
facie shows that accused nos.1 & 2 were in contact with the
other accused persons and they had provided vehicles and
financial assistance to the assailants. Because of the rivalry
between two gangs, multiple murders have taken place and the
deceased is one of the victims of the rivalry between two
gangs. In the event the accused are enlarged on bail, the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
chances of they committing similar offences and also
threatening the material charge sheet witnesses cannot be
ruled out. There are eye-witnesses to the incident in question
who have spoken about the role of the assailants. The accused
persons have confessed to their crime and the confession of
the accused is admissible under Section 19 of the KCOCA. The
weapons and blood stained clothes were seized from the
assailants after their arrest and the DNA test report supports
the case of the prosecution. Merely for the reason that accused
persons are in custody for a period of nearly two years, their
bail applications cannot be entertained having regard to the
gravity of offence and also the background in which the incident
in question has taken place. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petitions.
7. FIR in the present case was registered against accused
nos.1, 2 and others. After completing investigation, charge
sheet has been filed against 27 persons. The allegation as
against accused nos.1 & 2 is about conspiring with the other
accused persons to commit the murder of deceased Mahesh
who was earlier a member of the gang of accused nos.1 & 2.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
According to the prosecution, Mahesh had joined hands with
Linga with whom accused nos.1 & 2 had a rivalry. Linga was
murdered on 08.12.2020, and in the said case, accused nos.1 &
2 were arrayed as accused. It appears that subsequently
Madan who was the accomplice of accused nos.1 & 2 was
murdered and in the said case Mahesh who was arrayed as
accused was arrested, and therefore, accused nos.1 & 2 had
conspired to commit the murder of Mahesh and in furtherance
of such conspiracy, on 04.08.2023 accused nos.3 to 16 who
came in two Innova Cars bearing registration Nos.KA-05-AB-
2224 and KA-51-AB-3852, intercepted the car bearing
registration No.KA-05-MM-9263 in which deceased Mahesh was
travelling with CW-60 & CW-67 after being released from jail,
and assaulted him with deadly weapons and committed his
murder. The allegation against accused nos.17 to 27 is that
they conspired with the other accused persons and were
informing the other accused persons about the whereabouts of
Mahesh. It is under these circumstances, accused nos.17 to 27
have been enlarged on bail in the present case.
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. So far as accused nos.1 & 2 are concerned, a case of
strong motive has been made out by the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, since Mahesh was involved in the
murder of Madan who was the accomplice of accused nos.1 &
2, they had decided to eliminate him, and accordingly had
conspired with the other accused persons. The prosecution has
collected material to show that accused no.1 had provided
vehicles to the assailants for the purpose of committing the
crime and thereafter to escape from the spot of crime. Accused
no.1 was involved in totally 22 criminal cases and during the
last 10 years prior to the alleged date of incident, he was
involved in 13 criminal cases. Accused no.2 was involved in 5
criminal cases prior to the registration of the present case
against him.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused nos.1 & 2
has submitted that in all the earlier criminal cases registered
against accused nos.1 & 2, they have been now acquitted and
only one criminal case registered against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and under the
provisions of the KCOCA is pending as against them.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. The material on record would go to show that accused
nos.1 & 2 were involved in multiple criminal cases registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC, etc.,
and even the provisions of KCOCA has been invoked against
them on multiple occasions. In the earlier criminal cases
registered against them, they were enlarged on bail.
11. Section 22 of KCOCA provides for modified application of
certain provisions of the Code, which reads as under:
“22. Modified application of certain
provisions of the Code. – (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code or in any other law,
every offence punishable under this Act, shall be
deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning
of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code and “Cognizable
case” as defined in that clause shall be constructed
accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation
to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act
subject to the modifications that, in sub-section (2), –
(a) The references to “fifteen days” and “Sixty days”
wherever they occur, shall be constructed as references
to “Thirty days” and “ninety days” respectively; (b) After
the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted
namely:- “Provided further that if it is not possible to
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
complete the investigation within the said period of
ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said
period up to one hundred and eighty days on the report
of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the
investigation and the specific reasons for the detention
of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days.”
(3) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply
in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person
on an accusation of having committed an offence
punishable under this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
code no person accused of an offence punishable under
this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on
own bond, unless-
(a) The Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application of such release;
and
(b) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of
such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is
noticed by the Court that he was on bail in an offence
under this Act or under any other Act on the date of the
offence in question.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
(6) The limitations on granting of bail specified in
sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code or any other law for the time being in force on
the granting of bail.
(7) The police officer seeking the custody of any
person for pre-indictment or pretrial interrogation from
the judicial custody shall file a written statement
explaining the reason for seeking such custody and also
for the delay if any, seeking the police custody.”
12. Under Section 22(4) of KCOCA, unless the Court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail, the accused cannot be
released on bail. Considering the fact that accused nos.1 & 2
are persons with criminal antecedents, merely for the reason
that they have been acquitted in the earlier criminal cases
registered against them, it is difficult to record a finding at this
stage that they are not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. In fact, as on the date of the alleged offence, accused
nos.1 & 2 were on bail in Crime No.58/2017 registered by
Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 399, 402 IPC, Sections 27 & 30 of
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
Arms Act and Section 3 of KCOCA, and the said case is
undisputedly pending as on this date. In the said case, they
were on bail as on the date of the alleged incident.
13. Section 22(5) of KCOCA provides a further limitation in
addition to the limitation provided under Section 22(4) of
KCOCA. Section 22(5) of KCOCA states that accused shall not
be granted bail if it is noticed by the court that he was on bail
in an offence under KCOCA or under any other Act on the date
of the offence in question. A similar provision under the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, was
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA VS BHARAT SHANTI LAL SHAH & OTHERS –
(2018)13 SCC 5, and in paragraphs 62 & 64 of the said
judgment, it is observed as under:
“62. Having recorded our finding in the aforesaid
manner, we now proceed to decide the issue as to
whether a person accused of an offence
under MCOCA should be denied bail if on the date of the
offence he is on bail for an offence under MCOCA or any
other Act. Section 21(5) of MCOCA reads as under:
“21. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARnoticed by the court that he was on bail in an offence
under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of
the offence in question.”
64. We consider that a person who is on bail after
being arrested for violation of law unconnected
with MCOCA, should not be denied his right to seek bail if
he is arrested under MCOCA, for it cannot be said that he
is a habitual offender. The provision of denying his right
to seek bail, if he was arrested earlier and was on bail
for commission of an offence under any other Act,
suffers from the vice of unreasonable classification by
placing in the same class, offences which may have
nothing in common with those under MCOCA, for the
purpose of denying consideration of bail. The aforesaid
expression and restriction on the right of seeking bail is
not even in consonance with the object sought to be
achieved by the Act and, therefore, on the face of the
provisions this is an excessive restriction.”
14. From a reading of the aforesaid observations in Bharat
Shanti Lal Shah’s case supra, it is very clear that restriction
under Section 22(5) of KCOCA cannot be made applicable
against a person who is on bail in a criminal case registered
against him not connected with KCOCA. But such a restriction
would apply to a person who was on bail in a case earlier
registered against him under the provisions of KCOCA as on the
date of registration of the present case.
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. It is specifically contended by the learned SPP that in the
event accused nos.1 & 2 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper
with the prosecution witnesses. The said apprehension also
cannot be ruled out considering the notorious background of
accused nos.1 & 2 and also the fact that in majority of criminal
cases registered against them, the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution.
16. In Prabhakar Tewari’s case supra, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that merely for the reason that there are
other criminal cases pending against an accused, the same
cannot be a ground to deny him bail. The said principle has
been followed by this Court in the case of JAGAN @
JAGANNATH VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA –
Crl.P.No.4278/2023 disposed of on 26.09.2023.
17. In Prabhakar Tewari’s case supra, the provisions of
special enactment was not invoked and only the offences
punishable under the IPC were invoked as against the accused
therein. So far as the present case is concerned, the offences
punishable under the provisions of the KCOCA has been
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
invoked against the accused. As on the date of registration of
the present FIR against accused nos.1 & 2, a case in Crime
No.58/2017 registered invoking the provisions of KCOCA was
pending against them and they were enlarged on bail in the
said case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in view of
restrictions found in Sections 22(4) & 22(5) of KCOCA, the
prayer made by accused nos.1 & 2 for grant of regular bail
cannot be entertained.
18. In so far as accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 are concerned,
they allegedly had arrived at the spot of crime along with other
assailants in two Innova cars provided to them by accused no.1
and had assaulted deceased Mahesh with deadly weapons and
committed his murder. The incident in question had taken place
at about 9.30 p.m. on 04.08.2023 when Mahesh was returning
from jail after he was released on bail in the criminal case
registered against him for committing the murder of Madan.
The vehicle in which Mahesh was travelling with his friends CW-
60 & CW-67 was intercepted by assailants-accused nos.3 to 16
and when Mahesh got down from his vehicle and tried to
escape, the assailants who were armed with deadly weapons
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
assaulted him and committed his murder. The present crime
was committed in a public place where many vehicles had
stopped near a traffic signal light. Therefore, the public order
was at threat due to the act committed by the accused. This
goes to show that accused in this case have no regard or
respect to rule of law.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ARJUN S/O
RATAN GAIKWAD VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
– 2024 INSC 968, in paragraph 15, has observed as under:
“15. As to whether a case would amount to threat
to the public order or as to whether it would be such
which can be dealt with by the ordinary machinery in
exercise of its powers of maintaining law and order
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. For example, if somebody commits a brutal
murder within the four corners of a house, it will not be
amounting to a threat to the public order. As against
this, if a person in a public space where a number of
people are present creates a ruckus by his behaviour
and continues with such activities, in a manner to create
a terror in the minds of the public at large, it would
amount to a threat to public order.”
20. The weapons used by the assailants were subsequently
recovered during the course of investigation. The weapons
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
which were recovered at the instance of accused nos.9, 11, 14
& 16 had blood stains on it and DNA test report would go to
show that the said blood stains matched with the DNA of the
deceased. After the incident, accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16
escaped with the other assailants in the vehicle they had
arrived and all the assailants stayed in a private
accommodation and in the CCTV footage of the said place
which is collected by the Investigation Officer, the presence of
accused nos.9, 11, 14 & 16 along with other assailants is also
found.
21. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
petitioners are in custody for the last nearly two years and the
trial in the case is yet to commence and accordingly considering
the period of petitioners incarceration, they are entitled to be
released on bail. In support of the said argument, they have
placed reliance on the judgment in Saddam Hussain’s case
supra.
22. In Saddam Hussain’s case supra, appellant nos.1 & 2 had
undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years 25 days and
appellant no.3 had undergone incarceration for a period of two
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
years and six months and the only antecedent against them
was a case registered under Section 151 of Cr.PC. So far as the
petitioners herein are concerned, they are in custody for nearly
two years and considering the gravity of the offences and the
manner in which it is committed, I am of the opinion that their
prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground of their
incarceration cannot be entertained at this stage.
23. In the case of NEERU YADAV VS STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANOTHER – (2016)5 SCC 422, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 to 15, has observed as under:
“13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not
take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by
law. It is an established fact that a crime though
committed against an individual, in all cases it does not
retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in
certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the
society. The victim may be an individual, but in the
ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim.
A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and
order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs
orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An
individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of
paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself.
He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a
nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARsociety; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great
English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back
eloquently spoke thus:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in
exact proportion to their disposition to put
moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love to justice is above
their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is
above their vanity and presumption; in
proportion as they are more disposed to
listen to the counsel of the wise and good,
in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist unless a controlling
power upon will and appetite be placed
somewhere and the less of it there is
within, the more there must be without. It
is ordained in the eternal constitution of
things that men of intemperate minds
cannot be free. Their passions forge their
fetters.
14. E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of
US Court of Appeals had to state thus:
“In an ordered society of mankind
there is no such thing as unrestricted
liberty, either of nations or of individuals.
Liberty itself is the product of restraints; it
is inherently a composite of restraints; it
dies when restraints are withdrawn.
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KARFreedom, I say, is not an absence of
restraints; it is a composite of restraints.
There is no liberty without order. There is
no order without systematised restraint.
Restraints are the substance without which
liberty does not exist. They are the essence
of liberty. The great problem of the
democratic process is not to strip men of
restraints merely because they are
restraints. The great problem is to design a
system of restraints which will nurture the
maximum development of man’s
capabilities, not in a massive globe of
faceless animations but as a perfect
realisation, of each separate human mind,
soul and body; not in mute, motionless
meditation but in flashing, thrashing
activity.”
15. This being the position of law, it is clear as
cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the
criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed
with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-
sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have
reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that
he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of
heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of
imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do
create a thunder and lightening having the effect
potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:27284
CRL.P No. 3195 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 3210 of 2025
CRL.P No. 4969 of 2025
HC-KAR
law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting
these kind of accused persons to be at large and,
therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion
judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.”
24. If the background of the accused persons and the nature
of allegations found against the accused are considered, I am
of the opinion that there is potential threat to the witnesses in
the present case. CWs-59 to 67 are the alleged eye-witnesses
to the incident in question and they are yet to be examined
before the Trial Court. Under the circumstances, considering
the totality of allegations made against the accused, gravity of
offence, the nature of evidence and also the antecedents of the
accused persons, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the
prayer made by the accused for grant of regular bail cannot be
entertained. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed reserving
liberty to the petitioners to renew their bail application before
the Trial Court in the event trial is not commenced within a
reasonable period.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK