S. 300(1) CrPC Not Attracted: Karnataka HC Refuses To Discharge Alleged LeT Member Accused Of Planning To Kill Hindu Leaders & Govt Officials
|The Karnataka High Court refused to discharge an alleged member of banned terrorist organization Lashqar-e-Taiba (LeT) who was accused of planning to kill Hindu leaders and Government officials.
The Court was deciding a writ petition preferred by the accused against the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge by which his application under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking his discharge was dismissed.
A Division Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J.M. Khazi observed, “In the case on hand, Section 300 (1) of Cr.P.C. cannot be attracted at all. The petitioner may have been acquitted by Delhi Court, but that acquittal does not stop the trial by Bengaluru court. In fact the act giving rise to offences with which the petitioner was charged and tried by Delhi court are not same as acts constituting offences for which he is being tried by Bengaluru court. May be the acts have similarity, but they are not same. Some of the witnesses to both the trial may be same, again it is not a ground for invoking Section 300 of Cr.P.C.”
Senior Advocate Kiran S Javali and Advocate Mohammed Tahir represented the petitioner/accused while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) P. Prasanna Kumar represented the respondent/National Investigating Agency (NIA).
Factual Background -
An FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 121, 122, 379, 153B, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in the year 2012. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, investigation was handed over to the NIA and an FIR was registered by the same. Subsequently, another FIR was registered by NIA against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner was acquitted by the Delhi Court and therefore, he made an application under Section 300 of CrPC before the Special Court.
The petitioner stated that he faced trial at Delhi Court on certain facts and circumstances which are same in the case at Bengaluru and in this view, he cannot be tried again on the same set of facts and circumstances as per Section 300 of CrPC. As his application was dismissed, he was before the High Court. SPP for the respondent submitted that the FIR against the petitioner was registered on the accusations that certain persons were part of terrorist gang and being inspired by the activities and ideology of banned terrorist organization ‘LeT’, they planned to kill Hindu leaders and government officials.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “The Special Court in para 14 of its order has very well delineated the differences in allegations made in both the cases. It is to be noted here that a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner during trial in Delhi court that case pending in Bengaluru was altogether different.”
The Court enunciated that the Supreme Court held that the binding force of a finding at an earlier stage would depend on allegations, facts required to be proved and the findings of the court.
“Here, as has been rightly held by the Special Court, the two cases are factually different and separate. There is no error in the impugned order”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to discharge the accused.
Cause Title- Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor v. National Investigating Agency (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:27788-DB)