IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6400/2017 BETWEEN:
Ananda S/o Chandru Aged about 28 years Athni Village Kasaba Hobli Arkalgud Taluk Hassan District-573 102. .. PETITIONER (By Sri Murthy D L, Adv.) AND:
State by Arkalgud Police Station Arkalgud Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.196/2017 of Arakalagud P.S., Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 4(1A) and 21 of M.M.R.D. Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 4(1A) and 21 of M.M.R.D. Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.196/2017.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused No.1, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is employed under accused No.2. He never involved in transportation of sand illegally as alleged by the prosecution. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are already granted bail by the order of this Court. The learned Counsel has also produced the copy of the order dated 9.10.2017 passed in Criminal Petition No.6088/2017 in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, they prima facie go to show the involvement of the petitioner-accused No.1 in committing the alleged offence. He submitted that without holding a valid permit or licence, the petitioner had involved in transportation of the sand illegally. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3.
6. Similar set of allegation is made against accused Nos.2 and 3 that they were alleged to have been involved in transportation of sand illegally. This Court, after considering the merits of the case, allowed the petition of accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. The alleged offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent- police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1A), 21 of MMRD Act and Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.196/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Cs/-
Sd/- JUDGE