IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7925/2018 BETWEEN 1. C.K. DEVARAJU S/O KALE GOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT #D-3/4600, SRI BYRAVA NILAYA, 22ND CROSS, V.V. NAGARA, KALLA HALLI, MANDYA-571401 2. SUNIL S., S/O SRIKANTE GOWDA, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NARAYANAPURA POST, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA-571455 3. CHANNE GOWDA S/O NINGE GOWDA, AGED 40 YEARS RESIDING AT #32, KASUVANAHALI, NAGAMANGALA, PALAGRAHARA, MANDYA-571432 4. B.K. SHIVARUDRA SHETTY S/O KEMPA SHETTY, AGED 49 YEARS R/AT BENNAHATTI VILLAGE AND POST, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 5. NAGESH C.H., S/O LATE C.H. HUCHE GOWDA, AGED 44 YEARS RESIDING AT CHAKENAHALLI, H.N.PURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SARAVANA S., FOR SRI SATYANARAYANA S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.250/2018 OF NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS. 379 OF IPC AND RULE 3, 42 AND 44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSIONS RULE AND SECTION 4(1A) AND 21(1-5) OF MINES AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT AND SECTION 4(1A) OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant them anticipatory bail in Crime No.250/2018 of Nagamangala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, Sections 3, 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule 1994, Sections 4(1A), 21(1-5) of MMDR (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and Section 4(A1) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2018 at 11.00 p.m., the complainant, who was on night rounds has received an information that illegal stone mining work was done by using the explosives in Sri Byraveshwara Crushers near Kempanakoppalu Village. Immediately, he along with his team went to the spot at 11.30 p.m.. After seeing the complainant and his team, 3 people were allegedly ran away in the dark and there he found stone jelly sufficient for 5 loads of tipper lorry and stone boulders were also found on 2 tipper lorries bearing No.KA-11-6029 and KA-54-1354. The police team found a person hiding behind those lorries and on enquiry he said he is working as a Writer in the said Crusher and he allegedly stated that the owner of the stone crusher-petitioner No.1 used to blast stone at night, crush them to stone jelly and used to supply them. On the basis of the said complaint a case has been registered against the petitioners.
4. It is the submission of the petitioners’ counsel that accused No.6/petitioner No.5 is having License to explosive the stones and accused No.1/petitioner No.1 is having Stone Quarry Lease. There were no illegalities and irregularities in conducting the said business. They store query explosive in terms of the said License granted by the Government. He further submitted that only with political motivation a complaint has been registered against the petitioners. He further submitted that there was no substance in the allegations made as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners were found illegally by using the explosives they used at the stone quarry and thereafter by crushing, supplied them. Therefore, the petitioners have involved in a serous offence and thereby they have put lose to the Government. He further submitted that accused/petitioners were absconded since from the date of lodging of case and if they were granted anticipatory bail they may not be available for investigation and interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were having License for doing stone mining work in the land in part Survey No.18 of Shanubhoganahalli Village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District over an extent of 5 acres and petitioner No.5 is having explosive license. As the matter is to be appreciated and considered at the time of trial and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I feel that if the petitioners are ordered to be released by imposing some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused petitioners are granted anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest in Crime No.250/2018 of Nagamangala Rural Police Station, the petitioners are ordered to be released, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Each Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Agency within fifteen days from today iii) They shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required.
iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fifteen days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the charge sheet is filed.
vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
In view of disposal of main matter, the prayer sought in I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2019 stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*