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

Prabhu And Others vs State By Konanur Police Station

High Court Of Karnataka|24 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4967/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Prabhu S/o Nanjundaswamy Aged about 40 years R/at Basavapattana Village Ramanathapura Hobali Arakalgud Taluk Hassan District-573 201.
2. Rajanikanth S/o Late Shivanna Aged about 38 years R/at Moolehosahalli Village Ramanathapura Hobali Arakalgud Taluk Hassan District-573 201. ..PETITIONERS (By Sri Girish B Baladare, Adv.) AND:
State by Konanur Police Station Hassan District-573 201.
Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.183/2016 of Konanur P.S., Hassan District for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A), 21 of MMRD Act and Rule 42, 44 of KMMC Rules and Section 420, 379 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A), 21 of MMRD Act and Rule 42, 44 of KMMC Rules and Section 420, 379 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.183/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.06.2016, when the respondent police were on night rounds at about 9.30 p.m., it was found that two tractors were loaded with sand near Kalingeshvara temple of Moolehoshalii village and the persons found in the tractor after seeing the police ran away from the said place. It is further alleged that said persons were involved in transportation of sand illegally without paying the royalty to the Government or without having permit or licence. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the court below on the bail application.
5. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is mentioned that some persons were involved in transportation of the sand illegally. But the names of the present petitioners came to be mentioned in the prosecution case after the lapse of four months after recording the statement of witnesses on 5.10.2016. It is contended by the petitioners that they are not involved in committing the alleged offence. The tractor as well as the alleged sand were seized by the police in the presence of panch witnesses. Therefore, nothing further is to be seized from the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have contended that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. They have undertaken that they are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
6. Hence, the 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 4(1A), 21 of MMRD Act and Rule 42, 44 of KMMC Rules and Section 420, 379 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.183/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one solvent 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.
Cs/-
Sd/- JUDGE
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

Prabhu And Others vs State By Konanur Police Station

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
24 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B