IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9465 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.Manu.K.S, S/o.Chikkathayamma, W/o Siddarajegowda, Aged about 25 years, Residing at Kabbalagerepura village, Bukanakere Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District-571 426.
(By Sri. Srinivasa D.C, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka ByK.R.Sagara Police, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001 (By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.28/2015 (C.C.No.224/2015) of K.R.Sagar Police Station, Mandya District for the offence punishable under rule 3(1) of KMMCR and Section.4(1), 4(1A), 21(3),21(1), 21(4) of MMDR Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.28/2015 (C.C.No.224/2015) of K.R.Sagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 3(1) of KMMCR 4(1), 4(1A), 21(3), 21(1), 21(4) of MMDR Act (hereinafter referred as “Act” for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that police with ulterior motive have erred the petitioner as accused No.4 in the charge sheet material. In the complaint lodged name of the accused is not found. He further submitted that only because that he is the owner of the Tipper he has been shown as accused. He is unknown person to other accused persons and there is no role of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He was not involved in any sand business nor transporting it from any place. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner- accused No.4 is not required for custodial investigation or interrogation. The alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment. Further he submitted that petitioner-accused No.4 is ready to co-operate with the investigation, abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner-accused No.4 is the owner of the Tipper Lorry and he was illegally transporting the sand which is going to affect the ecology of this Nation. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner is habitual offender and if he is released on bail, he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. He further submitted that since three years the petitioner-accused No.4 is absconding and was not available for investigation or interrogation and as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the counsel appearing for parties and perused the records.
7. It is alleged that when the village accountant received message and they came to know that illegally there is transportation of sand in two tipper lorries. They proceeded and found two tipper lorries which were loaded with sand. The drivers stopped the lorry and escaped from the spot and subsequently drivers have been apprehended and now charge sheet has been filed. Whether the petitioner-accused No.4 having conspired or not has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial and not at this premature stage. The alleged offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the said case has been registered during the year 2015 and the accused-petitioner No.4 is absconding since three years. But now the accused No.4 has come before this Court and ready to face the trial. Under such facts and circumstances, I feel, if by imposing some stringent conditions the petitioner-accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail it is going to meet the ends of justice.
10. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed and the petitioner- accused No.4 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No.28/2015 of K.R.Sagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under section 3(1) of KMMCR 4(1), 4(1A), 21(3), 21(1), 21(4) of MMDR Act, subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Agency is directed to enlarge him on anticipatory bail on he being executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. He should surrender before the Investigation Agency within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly.
4. He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activity, if so, the respondent-Police is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.
5. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station till the chargesheet is filed.
6. He should be regular in attending the Court.
7. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE ag