ABDUL HAMEED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby."

12. In the case of CHENNA BOYANNA KRISHNA YADAV VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER - (2007)1 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 has observed as under: "16. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the appellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or Section 24 of MCOCA. What is to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the appellant is not guilty of offences, he has been charged with, and - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR further that he is not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail. As noted above, the circumstance which has weighed with the High Court to conclude that the appellant had the knowledge of the organized crime syndicate of Telgi, printing fake stamps, etc. and these were being sold under the protection of the appellant and hence he had abetted an organised crime, alleged conversation between him and Telgi in January 1998, after the kidnapping incident. In our view, the alleged conversation may show the appellant's acquaintance with Telgi but may not per se be sufficient to prove the appellant's direct role with the commission of an organized crime by Telgi, to bring home offence abetment commission of organized crime falling within the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA and/or that he had rendered any help or support in the commission of an organised crime whether before or after the commission of such offence by a member of an organised crime syndicate or had abstained from taking lawful measures under MCOCA, thus, falling - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR within the purview of Section 24 of MCOCA. It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail." On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent - State would contend that the voluntary statement of the accused No.11 itself indicates that he is having criminal antecedents involved in three cases including the dealing in drugs. His statement has been recorded by Superintendent of Police and it is having presumptive value. Accused No.12 is the relative of accused No.3, who has kidnapped C.W.1 and robbed the cash and gave it to this accused No.12, who has transferred the amount to different accounts. The charge sheet materials show prima - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR facie case against petitioners for offences alleged against them. One of the offences alleged is provided with sentence which may extend to imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on the record.

6. As per charge sheet, the case of prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 15 are members of the organized crime syndicate by name Team Garuda. Accused Nos.1 to 11 conspired to kidnap C.W.1. In furtherance of the said conspiracy on 24.01.2025, the accused persons kidnapped C.W.1 and took him to different places and extorted money from him and demanded further money from C.W.1. Accused persons total extorted Rs.11,96,000/- from C.W.1 and out of them Rs.11,83,626/- has been recovered at the instance of accused persons. There is allegation against accused No.11, that he is member of Grada gang and he has - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR involved in commission of offences along with accused Nos.1 and 2. On 23.01.2025, the accused No.1 went to an open space wherein members of Garada gang were gathering wherein leaders -accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with the others i.e., accused Nos.4, 7, 8 and 10 came there and altogether consumed drugs. Accused No.1 told the others to identify the customers for drug peddling and they also planned to kidnap some businessmen and to rob cash and ornaments from them. Accused No.1 who was also present there along with other accused has agreed for the said conspiracy. Accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.01.2025 have followed C.W.1, who was going towards Nelamangala in vehicle and they followed him along with others and on

26.01.2025 at about 05.00a.m. they stopped C.W.1, kidnapped him and robbed money from him and got transferred amount from his account to different accounts. The petitioner -accused No.11 on 22.02.2025 at the instructions of accused No.3 went along with his friend Rahil to the garage of C.W.33 and took the vehicle given - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR by accused No.10 for trial, along with C.W.34 –garage worker in the said garage. On the way, this petitioner - accused No.11 assaulted C.W.34 and took the Baleno car and gave it to accused No.3. Accused No.11 is involved in three criminal cases. The provisions of KCOC have been invoked against the petitioner -accused No.11. The statement of accused No.11 has been recorded by the Superintendent of Police, wherein he has admitted his involvement in the commission of alleged offence and member of organized crime syndicate. The said voluntary statement recorded by the Superintendent of Police is having presumptive value. Considering the said aspects, there is prima facie case against the petitioner -accused No.11 for offences alleged against him and therefore he has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

7. The allegation against accused No.12 is that he is relative of accused No.3 and he has received Rs.2,50,000/- from accused No.3 and transferred them to different accounts and what remained with him is Rs.550/- - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR and he has spent them. There are no criminal antecedents of accused No.12. Considering the said aspect, the petitioner -accused No.12 has made out grounds for grant of bail with conditions.

8. In the result, the following ORDER i) The petition is partly allowed. (The bail petition by petitioner -accused No.11 dimissed. The bail petition by petitioner - accused No.12 is allowed) ii) The petitioner -accused No.12 is granted bail in Spl.C.C.No.1704/2025 arising out of Crime No.- 53/2025 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station pending on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-1) subject to following conditions: a) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:11178 CRL.P No. 323 of 2026 HC-KAR two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. b) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. c) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall attend the trial court on all dates hearing unless exempted and co-operate speedy disposal of the case. d) The petitioner -accused No.12 shall not involve in commission of any offence. If the petitioner -accused No.12 is found involved commission of any offence, prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted to him. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48