1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.10347/2025 BETWEEN : 1. SRI MANJUNATH S S/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT:No.55, 1ST CROSS SANYASI KUNTE BEHIND BBMP WARD OFFICE K.G.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 019. 2. SRI PRUTHVIK H S/O HANUMANTHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT:VARGARAHALLI SATHANUR ROAD CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGAR DIST. – 562 160. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SAMPATH KUMAR A U, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K RAMA SINGH, ADVOCATE) 2 AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME No.148/2024 HANUMANTHANAGAR AND SPL.C.C.No.2615/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(b), 143, 147, 148, 307, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) OF KCOCA-2000 AND SECTION 27(3) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.11.2025, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CAV ORDER This petition is filed by Accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant bail in Crime 3 No.148/2024 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 307, 201 read with 149 of IPC, Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short ‘KCOC Act’) and Section 27(3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, pending in Spl.C.C.No.2615/2024 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for respondent – State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in the FIR the name of the petitioners has not been mentioned. The name of the petitioners has not been taken by the complainant or by CW.2. In the wound certificate it is mentioned that assault by unknown persons. The statement of CW.2 / injured has been recorded after five days of the incident wherein the name of the petitioners has 4 been stated as one of the assailants. CW.2 / injured is a rowdy sheeter involved in 10 cases. There is rivalry between CW.2 and accused No.7. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. CW.2 has been discharged from hospital. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 1½ years. The conspiracy and motive is against accused Nos.1 and 7. The confession under Section of 19 of KCOC Act has been recorded by the DCP but as per the said provision Superintendent of Police has to record the statement of accused. The trial is not yet commenced. Accused Nos.5 to 8 have been granted bail. The under trials cannot be indefinitely detained pending trial and on that point, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Union of India vs. K.A.Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 (ii) Vinod Raj vs. The State of Karnataka (Crl.A.No.1741/2022 DD 19.01.2023) 5 4. He contends that merely because there are several criminal cases pending against the accused themselves cannot be basis for refusal of prayer for bail. On that point, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. (2020) 11 SCC 648 (ii) Raja @ Cat Raja vs. The State of Karnataka (Crl.A.No.45/2024 DD 16.02.2024) 5. He contended that petitioner is not member of any organized crime syndicate and therefore the provisions of KCOC Act are not applicable to him. On that point, he placed reliance on the following decision: Lal Mohd. And another vs. State of U.P and others (2025 SCC Online 1366) 6. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4. 7. Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that there is overt act alleged against the 6 petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulting the injured / CW.2 with deadly weapons on vital part of the body. Both the petitioners are rowdy sheeters and they are involved in 6 and 4 cases each. IGP has given approval for invoking provisions of KCOC Act. The ADGP has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners for offences under KCOC Act. CW.3 to 5, 7 and 8 are eye witnesses to the incident. CWs.3 and 5 in the test identification parade have identified the accused persons. After transfer of case to CCB, statement of CW.2 has been recorded on 17.09.2024. The dagger and clothes have been seized at the instance of petitioner No.1/accused No.3 and cricket bat and clothes were seized at the instance of petitioner No.2/accused No.4 and in the FSL report weapons and cloths are found to be blood stained. The wound certificate of CW.2 indicate that he has sustained six injuries and out of them injury No.1 is grievous and 2 to 6 are simple injuries. CWs.3 to 8 who are eye witnesses to the incident in their statement have 7 specifically stated the overt acts of these petitioners assaulting the injured with deadly weapons. The statement of CW.3 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he has specifically stated the overt acts of these petitioners assaulting the injured with deadly weapons. Accused No.7 who has been granted bail earlier has committed other offence and now he has been arrested and is in judicial custody. If the petitioners are granted bail, there is threat to prosecution witnesses and there are chances of they committing similar offence and absconding and delay the trial. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record. 9. Originally Hanumanthanagar Police had registered a case in Crime No.148/2024 against one Halappa and his friends for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 8 34 of IPC, based on a complaint lodged by one Sri V.Kumar, in connection with alleged attempt to commit murder of his son namely Sri Rajesh. 10. Initially this case was investigated by the jurisdictional police. Later, the case came to be transferred to CCB, Bengaluru for further investigation. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Organized Crime Wing, CCB, Bengaluru took up further investigation in the case and on completion of the investigation he has laid the charge sheet against 8 persons namely Abhishek @ Halappa and others for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 307, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 27(3) of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of KCOC Act. 11. CW.2 is injured and CW.3 to 8 are eye witnesses to the incident. In their statement before the IO they have 9 stated in detail about accused persons assaulting with deadly weapons and overt act of these petitioners. 12. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2024 at about 3.00 p.m. when CW.2 was near Shree Varaprada Ganapati Juice Centre located near Kammavari Co- operative Bank, 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar, accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 came to the spot in Innova Car and Suzuki Access Bike and made an attempt to murder CW.2 by assaulting him with deadly weapon and caused grievous injury to him. 13. The CCTV footage of the incident recorded in the CCTV camera has been collected. In the test identification parade, witnesses have identified the petitioners and other accused. The statement of petitioners have been recorded under Section 19 of the KCOC Act by the DCP. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said statement has to be recorded by the Superintendent of 10 Police and therefore, the said statement recorded by the DCP has no sanctity in law. In Bengaluru DCPs are of the rank of Superintendent of Police. Therefore, it cannot be said that statement recorded under Section 19 of the KCOC Act of the accused is not by the authorized officer as per provision contained under Section 19 of the KCOC Act. As per the provision contained in Section 19 of the KCOC Act, a confession made by a person before the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police shall be admissible in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator. 14. The wound certificate of CW.2 indicate that he has sustained six chop wounds and they are on vital parts like head and other parts. The dagger seized at the instance of petitioner No.1 / accused No.3 and cricket bat seized at the instance petitioner No.1 / accused No.4 are found to be blood stained as per FSL report. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 3 of KCOC Act and 11 Section 307 of IPC. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of life. 15. The documents furnished by learned Additional SPP indicate that petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are rowdy sheeters. Petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is involved in six and four cases each. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 (SCC OnLine SC 3763) held as under: 11. When the prosecution places on record material showing antecedents of the accused, and if the Court concludes that looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents………. 16. Considering the fact that the petitioners are rowdy sheeters involved in the several criminal cases, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses, if they are granted bail. Considering the above aspects, the petitioners have not 12 made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DKB Ct.sm