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

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

However, the MLA also faced a partial setback; While the High Court simultaneously rejected his bail plea, it asked him to knock on the door of the sessions court for the purpose. He pointed out that due to the termination of KCOCA, there was no longer any impediment in the trial court to consider his anticipatory bail application.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Mr. Basavaraj questioning the legality of invoking KCOCA against him and dismissing his interlocutory application (IA) seeking bail.

Meanwhile, Mr. Basavaraj withdrew his petition on December 19, challenging the First Information Report registered against him in the murder case. The withdrawal of this petition resulted in the termination of the temporary protection “not to take coercive steps against him”, which was granted by the Supreme Court in August while this petition was pending.

‘I’m not satisfied’

Reviewing the decision to initiate KCOCA, Justice Yadav said that the legal requirement on organized crime, which includes “continuation of illegal activities under Articles 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of KCOCA”, was not met in this case.

“None of the other defendants have two indictments against them involving offenses punishable by more than three years,” the Supreme Court said, as it is a requirement for criminals to be brought under the provisions of the KCOCA. The court ruled that the decision to approve KCOCA’s summons against the defendant would not be subject to legal review.

Although only Mr. Basavaraj had objected to the summoning of KCOCA, the Court granted the benefit of quashing the order to the other defendants as well. The court stated that “since the invocation of KCOCA is against the crime, the approval decision is not specific to the perpetrator, and in the present petition, its annulment is annulled, even if it is in the case of a defendant.” [Mr. Basavaraj] It has the effect of completely setting aside.”

Preventive bail

Although the Supreme Court rejected IA’s anticipatory bail plea, it made it clear that “the observations made by it were limited to the disposal of existing IA and should not be construed as a conclusive finding on the merits of the bail application”. The petitioner is reserved with the liberty to seek bail before the appropriate Court to the extent permitted by law.

Custody investigation

While refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction regarding grant of anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court observed: “This court at first glance The decision to “use force” was made in the argument of the Additional State Public Prosecutor, who maintained that custodial interrogation was the legal option available to the investigating agency and that there was no reason to reject the use of such power.

“Moreover, the investigation is not yet completed and an order granting bail may interfere with the investigation of a serious offence,” the Supreme Court said.