- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11924 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI S. DHANANJAYA @ DHANU S/O SOMASHEKAR AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS NOW R/AT TEACHERS COLONY MULABAGALU TOWN PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KOTHAMANGALA VILLAGE MULABAGALA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 562 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAM SINGH K, ADV., FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY N, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MULABAGALU TOWN POLICE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.2857/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,114,116,118,212,120-(b), 3(2), 3(3), 302,201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(i),3(4) OF KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT 2000 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.80/2022 REGISTERED BY MULABAGILU TOWN POLICE WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused No.2 in Special CC No.2857/2022 pending before the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.80/2022 registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 116, 118, 212, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000' for short), is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.80/2022 was registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 149 and IPC against Jagan and petitioner herein based on the first information dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 07.06.2022 received from Smt. Nirupama, wife of deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 26.06.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against 16 persons and petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the Trial Court was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4110/2025, which was dismissed as not pressed on 25.06.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court on the ground of delay in conducting the trial. The petitioner thereafter, had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in Special CC No.2857/2022 on the ground of delay in conducting the trial. The Trial Court vide its order dated 31.07.2025, has rejected the bail application on the ground that delay in conducting the trial was as a result of non co- operation from the accused. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the present case, petitioner has no other criminal case pending - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 against him. In the only other criminal case which was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, he has been acquitted and the said judgment and order of acquittal has attained finality. In the present case, petitioner is in custody for the last more than three and half years. The trial in the case is yet to commence. Even as on this date, charge has not been framed by the Trial Court. He submits that the alleged offences under the Act of 2000 cannot be invoked against the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has filed his statement of objections and has opposed the bail petition. However, he does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in the event, petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 based on the first information submitted by the wife of deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy since she suspected the hand of accused Nos.1 and 2, who are brothers, for the reason that the deceased and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 the accused named in the FIR had ill-will against each other and they had filed cases against each other. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 and the other accused persons named in the charge sheet were all arrested and charge sheet was filed against 16 persons. As per the charge sheet allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 and deceased had ill-will against each other. Accused No.16, who had subsequently developed ill-will with deceased Jagan Mohan Reddy, allegedly instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy and therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 had conspired with other accused persons to commit the murder of Jagan Mohan Reddy and in furtherance of such conspiracy, on the early morning of 07.06.2022, accused Nos.2, 5, 6, 10 and 11, who were armed with weapons had entered the premises of Gangamma Temple and had assaulted Jagan Mohan Reddy with weapons which they had brought with them and had committed his murder. Except accused Nos.2, 5, 6, 10 and 11, all the other accused persons have been granted bail in the present case. According to the prosecution, incident that had taken place inside the temple premises on the early morning of 07.06.2022 has been recorded in a CCTV and the movements - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 of the aforesaid five accused are found in the CCTV. As per the averments found in the FIR, 4 to 5 persons, who were armed with weapons were found near the Temple and it is not stated in the first information that the act of the accused assaulting the deceased with deadly weapons was recorded in the CCTV. 7. Prior to registration of the present case against the petitioner, he was involved in another criminal case in Crime No.118/2017 registered by Mulbagal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC and for the said offences, he was tried in CC No.195/2018 and was acquitted by judgment and order dated 24.02.2023. Undisputedly, the said judgment and order of acquittal has attained finality. 8. Prosecution in the present case has invoked the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Act of 2000 against accused persons. 9. Section 3 of the Act of 2000, which provides for punishment for organized crimes, reads as follows:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 "3. Punishment for organized crime - (1) whoever commits an organized crime shall, - (i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees. (ii) In any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (3) Whoever harbors or conceals or attempts to harbor or conceal, any member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (4) Any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees. (5) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from commission of an organized crime or which has been acquired through the organized crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not be less than two lakh rupees." 10. The word 'organized crime' is defined under Section 2(e) of the Act of 2000, which reads as follows:- "(e) “Organized crime” means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency;" 11. The word ‘continuing lawful activity’ found in Section 2(e) defined under Section 2(d), which reads as follow "(d) “Continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;" 12. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is apparent that one of the criteria for invoking the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act of 2000 is that accused should have been charge sheeted for more than one case registered for cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years or more, within preceding period of ten years and the competent Court should have taken cognizance of such offence. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 13. In the case on hand, undisputedly, prior to the present case being registered, petitioner was involved in only one criminal case in which he has been now acquitted. Therefore, as against the petitioner herein, the alleged offences punishable under the provisions of the Act of 2000 could not have been invoked by the prosecution. 14. Petitioner is in custody in the present case from 26.06.2022 onwards. More than three and half years have lapsed after he was remanded to custody in the present case. The order sheet of the Trial Court would reflect that as on this date, even charge has not been framed by the Trial Court in Special CC No.2857/2022. The prosecution in all as cited 124 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and therefore, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed off on merits in the near future is very remote. 15. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime". 16. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has attributed the delay in conducting the trial on the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than three and half years. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and more so, the period of petitioner's incarceration and the stage of the case before the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that his prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case. Accordingly, the following order:- 17. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special CC No.2857/2022 pending before the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.80/2022 registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 116, 118, 212, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6721 CRL.P No. 11924 of 2025 e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6