IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRL. P. NO.7600/2017 BETWEEN 1. ANNAPPASWAMY S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. H R PRASANNA, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPD. BY HIS GANDASI POLICE, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.241/2016 OF GANDASI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND SEC.4(1),4(1A),21(1),21(4),21(4A) OF MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND RULES.42,44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR AND MINERAL CONCESSION RULES.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition by the petitioner-accused No.4 filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 (1), 4(1A), 21(1), 21(4), 21(4A) of MMRD (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and also Rule 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule, 1994 registered by the respondent police station in Crime No.241/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner-accused.
4. Looking to the complaint averments it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused persons involved in transport of the sand illegally without possession any valid documents and without paying any royalty to the Government. When the complainant came to know about the alleged offence, he along with his team went to the spot and they have seen the accused persons transporting the sand in the tractor illegally. In the presence of the panch witnesses the loaded sand were seized under the seizure mahazar, on the basis of which the complaint came to be registered.
5. Looking to the grounds urged in the bail petition accused No.4 who is the petitioner herein contended that he was not at all present at the spot as he is totally unconnected with the alleged incident and there is a false implication of the present petitioner in the case. He is also undertaken that he is ready to undertake any condition to be imposed by this court while granting the bail. The tractor as well as the sand has already been seized by the police officers under the mahazar. Therefore, at present nothing further is to be seized from his possession. The alleged offences are triable by the Sessions Court and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life.
6. Hence, petition is allowed. The respondent police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest subject to the following conditions.
i. The petitioner / accused No.4 has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Chs*