Subbu and Others vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

The petitioners are said to be Accused Nos. 1 and 2 against whom there are allegations of offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, on the basis of the complaint of the Police Inspector, CCB, Mangaluru. It is alleged that on credible information as to Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 on the instruction of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were conspiring the murder of certain builders by name Siraj and Abdul Ravoof and in furtherance of the conspiracy, they had assembled with arms at Kuntapadhavu of Mangaluru Taluk and were making preparations on 21.06.2014 at 3.00 p.m. The complainant along with his staff had conducted a raid and saw that there were four persons in the shed and on seeing the complainant and his men, two persons are said to have escaped. However, the complainant had apprehended Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the present petitioners and on a personal search, had recovered 2 Petra and Breta Italian Pistols, 11 live cartridges, two mobile phones and cash of Rs. 1.5 lakh. Accused No. 2 was found in possession of one Petra and Breta Italian Pistol and six live cartridges. Both the accused did not possess any licence in respect of those fire arms and ammunition. On further interrogation, they had revealed that cash and fire arms were supplied to them by Accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are said to be involved in several antisocial activities and are referred to as underworld dons.

It is further claimed that further investigation revealed that the accused are involved in organized crimes attracting Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Organized Crimes Act'', for brevity). And the Investigating Officer had sought approval of the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru City to investigate the matter and obtain the sanction of the Additional Director General of Police, Crime and Technical Services, Bengaluru, for filing a charge-sheet. The Commissioner of Police is said to have granted permission and therefore, Section 3 of the Organized Crimes Act was invoked and the case was transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge. In the meanwhile, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were arrested and they are also said to be in judicial custody. These petitioners having approached the court below seeking bail, the same had been rejected since there was prima facie material to show that they were carrying arms and ammunition and large amount of cash and there was no explanation forthcoming as 10 why they were possessing the said articles and cash. It is further stated that confessional statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are recorded and they have made statements which coupled with the incriminating objects would indicate that they were indeed involved in criminal activity. Further Accused No. 1 is said to be involved in four other criminal cases of various police stations of Mangaluru City, including offences of murder. Accused No. 2 as well is said to be involved in a murder case as well as case of attack on churches in two different Police Stations of Mangaluru Taluk and accused No. 1 is said to have been released on bail. Immediately, he was found involved in another case. Similarly, Accused No. 2 was granted bail and thereafter he was again found involved in yet another case attracting Section 22(4)(b) and (5) and Karnataka Organized Crimes Act. It is in this background that the court below has rejected the application of the petitioners.

This court does not find any better reason to disagree with the court below. The petition is rejected.