IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2394/2019 Between:
Sri. Dhananjaya S/o. C. Ramesh, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.181, SFS 4th Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore 560 064.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Sandeep Patil, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka Through Gudibande Police Station Chikkaballapura Sub-division, Chikkaballapura, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore 560 001.
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 23.03.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.P.No.122/2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura and grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.339/2017 registered by the respondent – Police for offences u/s 42 of KMMC Rules, 4(1) and 4(1A)of MMDR Act, 3(1) of Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crusher Act and Section 379 of IPC, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Gudibande, Chikkaballapura.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the non- bailable warrant issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge by order dated 23.03.2019.
2. It is stated that proceedings were initiated in Crime No.339/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, Section 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011. It is further submitted that as regards to offences other than Section 379 of IPC, petitioner had challenged the initiation of proceedings in Crl.P.1384/2018 which came to be allowed by order dated 23.11.2018 and hence, present proceedings are confined to proceedings under Section 379 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner had earlier obtained anticipatory bail as per the order in Crl.Misc.P.No.1026/2017 and the conditions required marking of his attendance before the Station House Officer once in 15 days. It is stated that due to bonafide lapse, condition of marking attendance before the Station House Officer was not complied with.
4. Taking note of the violation, miscellaneous petition was filed seeking cancellation of bail and the impugned order has come to be passed whereby non- bailable warrant was issued after taking note of the lapse of the petitioner in adhering to the conditions imposed while enlarging him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be given one more opportunity looking into the nature of offence and also undertake that he would co- operate with the trial. It is further submitted that petitioner has not been declared as proclaimed offender and there is no legal embargo to consider his request.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader contends that proceedings relating to cancellation of bail having been instituted and there has been non- adherence of the conditions imposed and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary remedy.
7. Taking note of the nature of offence and the punishment prescribed, in order to enable the trial to be concluded it would be appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner, accordingly the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, however, subject to the stringent conditions to ensure that the lapse would not be repeated.
8. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.339/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within fifteen days from the date of release of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
(ii) The petitioner shall keep himself present on all days except where sufficient cause is made out as per law permitting exemption.
(iii) petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness.
(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with further investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case Sd/- JUDGE VP