IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7263/2017 Between:
1. Mr.Shreyas, S/o Kotreshappa, Aged about 26 years, Business man, R/o Gopala, Shivamogga City – 577201.
2. Mr.Ravi @ Yogisha, S/o Manju Poojari, Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o Kuska, Sarala village, Thirthahalli Taluk – 577324. ...Petitioners (By Sri Praveen Kumar G.R., Adv.) And State of Karnataka, By Shivamogga Rural Police Station, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 01.
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.379/2017 of Shimoga Rural Police Station, for the offence p/u/s 465, 466, 468, 471 r/w 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 7 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 Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of IPC and also Section 43 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 registered in respondent-police station Crime No.379/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 7 so also, the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so for as the petitioners are concerned, there are no allegations of their involvement in committing the alleged offences. Accused No.1 is the driver and accused No.2 is the owner of the alleged vehicle. He has also submitted that accused No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, petitioners along with other accused persons were transporting the sand without paying royalty to the Government. Therefore, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioners, so also, the other materials placed on record.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, they go to show that when the accused was transporting the loaded sand in the vehicle, the vehicle was stopped by the police and when asked, the accused has submitted false bills. The complaint averments further go to show that when the police have enquired the driver of the said vehicle, who has given the said bills to him, he has stated the name of the owner of the vehicle i.e., one Upendra, who is accused No.2 in this case. The accused has also stated that after transporting the sand to Shivamogga City, one Karthik and Shreyas, who are the agents, are going to sell the said sand. Materials on record also go to show that the present petitioners were involved in the case on the basis of voluntary statement given by accused No.1. Petitioners contended that, they are innocents of the alleged offences and they are falsely implicated in the present case. Even with regard to the false bills, there is prima-facie material that the bills were issued by owner of the vehicle–accused No.2. The petitioners contended that they are ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now, the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/ accused No.4 & 7 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 43 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 registered in respondent-Police station Crime No.379/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bonds and the surety bonds.
Sd/- JUDGE MR