Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
Sri B.A. Basavaraja, S/o. Late Anjinappa – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Home – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31304 Of 2025 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 19-12-2025
ORDER :
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
1. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order at Annexure-‘K’ dated 12.08.2025 granting permission to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, H & B Division, C.I.D. and Chief Investigating Officer to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 [’KCOCA’ for brevity] as against the petitioner in Crime No.73/2025 registered by the Station House Officer, Bharathinagar Police Station as regards the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [’ BNS ’ for brevity].
2. The petitioner has also filed Criminal Petition No.10290/2025, whereby, he has sought for quashing of proceedings in Crime No.73/2025 registered pursuant to FIR in Crime No.73/2025 pending before Bharathinagar Police Station on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 190 of BNS . The petitioner has however filed a memo and has sought for withdrawal of the said Criminal Petition.
BRIEF FACTS:-
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a Member of Legislative Assembly elected from the K.R.Puram Constituency and presently, an M.L.A. representing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The deceased, Sri Shivaprakash @ Shiva S/o Gajendra and as regards to his murder, FIR having been registered is stated to have made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 18.02.2025 against the petitioner herein as being involved in the offences of threatening, extortion, land grabbing, mafia, criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy amongst other offences.
4. It is further made out from the narration of facts that the deceased Shivaprakash had filed another complaint on 21.02.2025 alleging an attempt of extortion registered in Crime No.21/2025 before Bharathinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 3(5), 329(3), 351 of BNS . It is the assertion of the petitioner that he has not been named in the said complaint.
5. Insofar as registration of FIR as regards such complaint, accused No.1 - Jagadish is stated to have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5650/2025 seeking quashing of FIR and the further proceedings. It is submitted that this Court was pleased to stay further proceedings in Crime No.21/2025 on 25.02.2025 and the said order of stay is still in operation.
6. Insofar as the complaint dated 25.03.2025 lodged by the deceased with the Ramamurthynagar Police, it is stated that an endorsement of closure has been issued in NCR No.213/2025. It is thereafter on 15.07.2025 that the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint which is registered in Crime No.73/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 190 of BNS . In the FIR registered against the accused persons, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.5.
7. It is stated that accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 8 have been arrested and interrogated, while accused No.1 is stated to be absconding. The petitioner-accused No.5 obtained protection from arrest by an order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.10290/2025 on 18.07.2025, whereby, this Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the Police Authorities and the latter to proceed strictly in compliance with the law, viz., in adherence to Sections 35 (3), 35(4), 35(5), and 35(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘ BNSS ’ for brevity] as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another , (2014) 8 SCC 273 Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others , (2021) 2 SCC 427
8. The petitioner asserts that the mother of deceased has retracted the contents of the complaint stating that she had not named anybody in the complaint.
9. On 24.07.2025, it is stated that the investigation in Crime No.73/2025 bef
The invocation of KCOCA requires clear evidence of organized crime and continuing unlawful activities, which were not substantiated in this case.
At stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, competent authority is not required to wade through material placed by Investigating Age....
Charges under KCOCA require substantial evidence directly linking the accused to organized crime; mere confessions from co-accused are insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to strictly construe the provisions of MCOCA, establish the mens rea, and consider the length of the period spent in custody and the unlik....
For ascertaining the legal position under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA, the date of third occurrence should be the relevant date for counting the preceding ten years.
(1) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory.(2) Organised crime – Any person who is declared a....
The court affirmed that involvement in an organized crime syndicate justifies stringent bail denials, emphasized by the presence of multiple charges and confessions from co-accused.
Unlawful activity - If a person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards commission of an organized crime, if a nexus either with an accused who is a member of an “organized crime syndi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
