Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Manju And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|06 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8913/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Manju S/o Venkatesh Aged 19 years R/at K Gundapura Village Kollegala Taluk Chamarajanagara District-571 440.
2. Mahadeva Nayaka S/o Late B Mahadeva Nayaka Aged 41 years R/at Hanagalidoddi Village Kollegala Taluk Chamarajanagara District-571 440. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri Shiva Prasad Y S, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Ramapura Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.114/2016 of Ramapura P.S., Chamarajanagara for the offence P/U/S 379 of IPC and Sections 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 4(1A) and 21 of the MMRD Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.114/2016.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief as per the complaint averments are that on 12.10.2016 at 1.00 p.m. when the first informant was in the police station, on credible information that sand was being transported in a tractor, he proceeded along with his staff and reached the spot nearby Gundapura village. At 2.30 p.m. when all the officials were moving towards the place where sand has been illegally extracted, on the road they noticed a tractor and trailer loaded with sand and asked the driver and another person who was sitting next to him and waylaid the said vehicle. At that time, the driver and another person scuttled from the spot. On enquiry, it was learnt that the person who drove the tractor is accused No.1 Anandaraju. Thereby sought legal action to be taken against the said persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
5. As per the complaint averments they have seen accused No.1 Anandraju fled away from the spot after seeing the police. Accused No.1 has approached this Court and this Court has considered the merits of the case and by its order dated 19.11.2016 in Crl.P.No.8275/2016 has granted anticipatory bail to accused No.1. The present petitioners who are accused Nos.2 and 3 have denied the allegations made in the complaint contending that they are innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offences. They are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The offences alleged are also triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and Sections 4(1A) and 21 of the MMRD Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.114/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioners 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.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manju And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
06 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal