IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4582/2017 BETWEEN:
G.B.RAVI S/O BHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT GOVINAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJAKUMARA, ADV. FOR SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BELUR POLICE STATION HASSAN REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.81/2017 OF BELUR POLICE STATION, HASSAN, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304(A), 379 OF IPC AND SEC.4(1A), 21(1) OF MMDR ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent-police in their Cr.No.81/2017 registered for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 379 of IPC and 4(1A), 21(1) of the MMRD Act, 1957.
3. The allegation is, the petitioner engaged the deceased and two others to illegally mine the sand during the course of which the sand collapsed on the deceased and he expired.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the son of the deceased had stated that the deceased had been to the river with his cattle. The sand on the river bank accidentally collapsed and he expired. It is a suo moto complaint registered by the Investigating Officer on the statement of a third person, namely Siddaiah. The petitioner is not a criminal. He is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Pleader opposes the petition.
The allegation is under Sections 304(A) and 379 of IPC, due to gross negligence in engaging the deceased and his indulgence in the illegal activity of mining, the same will not impress upon the Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: