IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2491/2019 BETWEEN:
Kiran Kumar G.C.
S/o. G.M. Channegowda, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Nagamangala Town, Nagamangala Taluk and Mandya District – 571 416. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Ravindra D.K., Advocate along with Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwar, Advocate) AND:
State by Nagamangala Rural Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. Rachaiah S., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.33/2019 of Nagamangala Rural Police Station, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and under Sections 4(1-A) and 21(1-5) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the petition seeking for enlarging him on bail in the event of his arrest relating to proceedings pending in Crime No.33/2019 of Nagamangala Police initiated with respect to the offences punishable under Rules 3, 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 and under Sections 4(1-A) and 21(1-5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala.
2. The petitioner states that as regards the merits of the power to investigate the same is not free from doubt, in view of the order passed in W.P.No.9188/2018.
3. The petitioner further states that other accused (Accused No.2) in the same crime has been released on regular bail by virtue of an order passed in Crl.P.No.2492/2019. The petitioner further states that with respect to the land in question, the petitioner’s mother had been granted lease for a period commencing from 23.11.1998 to 31.03.2020 and hence, he contends that there are no prima facie materials for having initiated the prosecution.
4. The petitioner states that the proceedings have been initiated under the mistaken impression that there was no Quarrying Lease/Quarrying Licence issued to the petitioner’s mother. Petitioner’s further state that they would co-operate with the investigation and they are willing to be subjected to any condition as may be found necessary.
5. Taking note of the order passed in Crl.P.No.2492/2019 and also considering the fact that the question of recovery as such does not arise and the matter rests on quarrying activity in terms of the licence issued to the petitioner’s mother, it is a fit case to consider extending relief to the petitioner in the present petition. The question as to whether the petitioner has resorted to illegal quarrying beyond the licence is a matter to be established during trial. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner’s mother is also running a stone crusher with a valid licence. The very validity of prosecution is not free from doubt in light of order passed in WP No. 9188 of 2018 titled Mailegowda vs. The State of Karnataka.
6. In light of the above the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest with respect to the offences punishable under Rules 3, 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 and under Sections 4(1-A) and 21(1-5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of Nagamangala Rural Police Station, Mandya, in connection with Crime No.33/2019 within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(b) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the case.
(c) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so far as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
(d) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation.
(e) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(f) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in fortnight between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK