Karnataka High Court quashes invocation of KCOCA against Byrathi Basavaraj, but rejects his plea for anticipatory bail

In a relief to BJP MLA Byrathi Basavaraj, the High Court of Karnataka on December 19 quashed the invocation of provisions of the stringent Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA), 2000, against him and other accused persons in the case of murder of a realtor, Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva, who was killed on July 15.

However, the MLA faced a partial setback too as the High Court simultaneously rejected his plea for grant of anticipatory bail while asking him to knock on the doors of the sessions court for this purpose. It pointed out that there is no bar on the sessions court now to consider his plea for anticipatory bail in view of the quashing of KCOCA.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Mr. Basavaraj, who had questioned the legality of invoking KCOCA against him, and rejecting his interlocutory application (IA) seeking anticipatory bail.

Meanwhile, Mr. Basavaraj on December 19 withdrew his petition challenging the First Information Report registered against him in the murder case. The withdrawal of this petition has resulted in the end of an interim protection, of “not to take coercive step against him”, granted by the High Court in August during the pendency of this petition.

‘Not satisfied’

Analysing the order of invoking KCOCA, Justice Yadav said that the legal requirement of organised crime, which involves “continuing unlawful activity as contemplated under Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of KCOCA”, is not satisfied in this case.

“None of the other accused persons have against them two chargesheets involving offences of punishment of more than three years,” the High Court stated, since this is a requirement for bringing the offenders under KCOCA provisions. The Court held that the order of approving the invocation of KCOCA against the accused would not stand legal scrutiny.

Though only Mr. Basavaraj had challenged the invocation of KCOCA, the Court gave the benefit of it being quashed for the other accused too. The court stated that “as the invocation of KCOCA is against the offence, the order of approval is not particular to the offender, and its setting aside in the present petition though at the instance of one accused [Mr. Basavaraj] has the effect of setting it aside in its entirety.”

Anticipatory bail

Though the High Court rejected his IA for plea for grant of anticipatory bail, it made it clear that “observations made by it are limited to the disposal of the present IA and must not be construed to be a conclusive finding on the merits” of the plea for bail. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief of bail as is permissible in law before the appropriate Court.

Custodial investigation

While declining to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, the High Court observed that “this court finds prima facie force” in the contention of the Additional State Public Prosecutor, who had contended that custodial interrogation is the legal option available to the investigating agency and there is is no reason to deny such exercise of power.

“Further, investigation is still to be completed, and an order granting anticipatory bail may interfere with investigation of a heinous offence,” the High Court observed.