Sesha vs The State of Karnataka

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 461/2015 on the file of the respondent police Station.

A case has been registered against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. He is in judicial custody since three months, ten days. Hence, regular bail application is filed on his behalf under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Allegation against this petitioner and other accused of this case is that they were making preparation to commit dacoity on the night of 27.09.2015 near Seegehalli Gate, Magadi Main Road. It is alleged that on receipt of credible information, the respondent police and the staff went there and found that 5-6 persons had formed unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons and making attempt to commit dacoity. The police surrounded them, but they did not give proper answers, one among six persons who had gathered there escaped.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this petitioner was very much present on the night of 27.09.2015 near Seegehalli Gate and had held deadly weapons and that prima-facie case forthcoming in regard to the preparation made to commit dacoity. The car in which these accused came was also seized. It is submitted that this petitioner is involved in three separate criminal cases bearing No. 396/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 327, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC, Crime No. 428/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 327 read with Section 34 of IPC and in Crime No. 430/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 327, 504 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is argued that if this petitioner is enlarged, he is likely to commit similar offences.

After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed. As many as 27 persons have been cited as witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested this Court to take a lenient view in view of the conclusion of the investigation and charge sheet being filed. He has submitted that the petitioner who is accused in other three cases mentioned above, has already been released on bail in those cases and undertakes to obey any conditions which may be imposed on him.

Perused the records.

Heard the learned HCGP. After taking this petitioner into custody, police had subjected him to custodial interrogation on 28.9.2015. He is stated to have disclosed startling information to the police about his involvement in a dacoity case.

In the remand application filed by the respondent police before the jurisdictional JMFC at Nelamangala on 5.10.2015 a specific reference is made about the information given by this petitioner relating to one police constable Krishnamurthy who was working in Madanayakanahalli Police Station. In page No. 4 of the remand application filed by the respondent police on 5.10.2015, the information is given to the learned JMFC in kannada and English translation of which is as under:

"Later on, all the accused walked towards a layout in Bailakonahalli and assaulted the persons who were in the layout office with chopper and took away a sum of Rs. 35,000/- and 6 mobiles and they were switched off Then all of us came in a car and Chethan got down and gave Chethan a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and all of us went towards Taverekere. While going myself and Gautam contacted Krishnamurthy of Madanayakanahalli Police Station on his mobile bearing No. 9900444317 and informed him about the dacoity committed. Krishnamurthy told us not to use the robbed mobiles at any cost. In this regard, case is registered in Crime No. 396/15 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 327, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 394 of IPC is also added additionally.

Later on, accused went to Gangodanahalli to meet Krishnamurthy and there they met Krishnamurthy, his brother Jayaram and Sesha and Gautam talked to Jayaram and accordingly, Krishnamurthy and Jayaram showed the house, in which a lady was living alone and told the accused to assault her with a chopper and snatch away the gold chain. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was obtained by the accused from Krishnamurthy and Jayaram and spent the same. In this regard, a case registered in Crime No. 430/15 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 327, 504 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and accordingly 394 of IPC is also added".

When this startling information was brought to the notice of learned HCGP, he has submitted that Departmental Enquiry is already initiated against Krishnamurthy the police constable and he had been kept under suspension. It is submitted that the suspension is recalled and he has been transferred to Sulebele Police Station and Vijayapura C.P. I. is named as Enquiry Officer.

The very information disclosed by the police to the learned JMFC in the remand application discloses that one of the police constable at Madanayakanahalli Police Station i.e., Krishnamurthy and his brother were hand in glow with the accused. It is unfortunate that only departmental enquiry is initiated against the police constable and no criminal action is initiated against him. At this stage, learned HCGP, on instructions from the Inspector of Police, Madanayakanahalli and District Deputy Superintendent of Police, submits that the police are seriously contemplating to take criminal action against the police constable after making a thorough investigation into the complicity of Krishnamurthy and his brother.

By and large, the police officers and officials work very hard day and night. Because of one or two black sheep of this nature here and there would bring disrepute or disgrace to the department and its honest police officers/officials. It is high time that person of this background must be seriously dealt with in accordance with law and this Court hopes that the concerned police authorities will not leave any stone unturned to take all necessary action against those police official referred to in the remand application at the earliest.

On being asked to give the information of the number of cases registered in Madanayakanahalli Police Station during the year 2015 and sanctioned strength and working strength of the police, the learned HCGP submits that about 611 cases came to be registered in the year 2015 and the sanctioned strength is 60. He has submitted that the working strength is approximately 50. It would be very difficult to conduct the investigation of all 611 cases registered in a police Station with working strength of only 50 police officials. Cases of higher magnitude require deeper investigation and if proper investigation is not done, the criminal justice will be the casualty.

Therefore, this Court has already observed, while disposing of Crl. P. No. 7706/2015, about the number of cases which can be normally handled by a police station. The relevant observation made in Crl. P. No. 7706/2015 would be kept in mind by the police and would take all necessary steps to conduct effective and thorough investigation in all cases that would be registered in the police stations.

Taking into consideration the complicity of this petitioner with the police officer in committing dacoity, this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail petition is dismissed.

Registry to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District for reference immediately.