Karnataka High Court Allows Bail Plea By Accused In Journalist Gauri Lankesh's Murder

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused involved in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The accused was alleged to be harbouring Accused nos.2 & 3 who murdered Lankesh by shooting her near her house and being a member of the syndicate involved in committing organised crimes.

On September 5, 2017, journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh was shot dead in front of her residence in south Bengaluru. The police have arrested 18 persons in the case. The first charge-sheet in the case was filed against Naveen Kumar on May 30. On November 23, 2018, the SIT submitted an additional 9,235-page chargesheet in the Principal Civil and Sessions court. The second chargesheet named 18 people as accused in the murder.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to the accused no 11 who was charged for offences under Sections 302, 120B, 118, 203, 35 IPC, Sections 25(1) & 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short, 'COCA'), 

It said, “Though Section 22(4) of COCA provides for certain rigors for enlarging the accused on bail as against whom charges are made for the offences punishable under the COCA, the same cannot fetter the powers of this Court to enlarge the accused on bail when there is undue delay in trial and the material on record would go to show that the trial may not be completed any time soon.”

The petitioner was arrested on 18.07.2018. It was submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than five years, there are a total of 527 charge sheet witnesses and only 90 witnesses have been examined to date. The chances of the trial being completed in the immediate near future are not there, the petitioners argued. 

It was submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had conspired along with the other accused persons to murder Gouri Lankesh. Counsel argued that the material on record would go to show that the petitioner was not a party to the alleged conspiracy to commit the murder and in the meetings which were held by the other accused persons, in furtherance of such conspiracy, the petitioner was not present.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the plea arguing that the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner had been already dismissed by this Court. There was no change in the circumstances or law, and therefore, the petitioner cannot argue the case on merits afresh, the prosecution argued. 

It was further submitted that the voluntary statement of the petitioner and the other accused persons were recorded before invoking the provisions of COCA, and therefore, there was no merit in the contention urged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the requirements of Section 19 of the COCA were not complied.

It was argued that though there were 527 witnesses, the prosecution did not intend to examine all the said witnesses. The delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution, since because of repeated applications filed by the accused persons, there is a delay in completing the trial, it was argued. 

The bench went through the records noted in the present case, out of 527 charge sheet witnesses, only 90 witnesses had been examined. It recalled that a coordinate bench had directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial. Though charges were framed in the present case on 30.10.2021, for the last more than two years, only 90 witnesses have been examined. There are more than 400 charge sheet witnesses who are yet to be examined in the case, the Court observed. 

“Even if it is assumed that all the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet may not be examined in the case, considering the fact that only 90 witnesses have been examined for the last more than two years, it can be safely presumed that any time soon, the trial of the case may not be completed,” it held.

Noting that the Supreme Court's verdict in Kavitha Lankesh v Karnatka (2022) the court held “The presumption under Section 23 of the COCA would not be applicable as against the petitioner herein because it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had provided any financial assistance to the other accused in the present case.”

Taking into account that none of the witnesses had stated that the petitioner was a part of the meeting of the accused persons, wherein the accused had conspired to murder Gouri Lankesh, it was held that most of the aforesaid chargesheet witnesses had only spoken about the petitioner taking a house on rent at Kumbalagodu in the outskirts of Bengaluru.

 “Even if the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of COCA are proved, the said offences are not punishable exclusively with death or life imprisonment and the minimum punishment for the said offences is imprisonment by five years. Petitioner has been in custody for the last more than five years,” the Bench noted. 

Accordingly, it allowed the bail plea and directed the petitioner to appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court, and to not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 

Appearance: Advocate Amar Correa for Petitioner.

SPP Ashok A Naik for Respondent.

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 469

Case Title: Mohan Nayak N AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P.No.7963/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order