IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7677/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. Raghu, Aged 25 years, S/o Karaga Shetty, Resident of Bagali village, Santhemarahalli Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar District – 571 115.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Vinod Kumar M., Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka, Represented by Station House Officer, Santhemarahalli Police Station, Chamarajanagar District – 571 115.
Represented by the SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) ….Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in crime No.82/2017 of Santhemaralli police station, Chamarajanagar District for the offence P/U/Rule 44 (3) and 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule and u/s 4 (1), 4 (1A) and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to respondent – police station that in case of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 44 (3) and 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule and u/s 4 (1), 4 (1A) and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station, Crime No.82/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.3, so also the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed in the case.
4. The materials prima facie goes to show and as contended by the petitioner in the bail petition, he was not present at the spot, only on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, he has been arrayed in the case. Petitioner contended that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
5. The prosecution material goes to show that the bullock card along with the sand were seized by the police officer in the presence of panch witnesses.
6. Nothing further is to be seized from the present petitioner, alleged offences are trailable by the Magistrate Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, he can be admitted to regular bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner – accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections Sections 44 (3) and 42 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule and u/s 4 (1), 4 (1A) and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.82/2017, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
b) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
c) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
d) The petitioner has to 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 MH/-