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

Sri Sannaswamy vs State By Yelsur Police Station Hassan

High Court Of Karnataka|26 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

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.7393/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri.Sannaswamy S/o Channaiah Aged about 56 years, R/at Mallikarjuna Nagar, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District – 573 201. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Sudharshan.L, Advocate) AND:
State by Yelsur Police Station Hassan, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bengaluru – 560001.
...Respondent (By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) 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.99/2016 of Yelasur Police Station, Hassan and in CC No.165/2017 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Sakaleshpura for the offence P/U/S 379 of IPC and Section 4(1A) and 21 of M.M.R.D Act and Rule 31(r) of K.M.M.C Rule.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957, Section 31(r) of KMMC Rule 1994 and Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.99/2016.
2. The facts as per the complaint averments is that, the complainant on 08.05.2016 at about 5.30 P.M with his friends on a morning walk near the Hemavathi River Bank, he found six persons with two Tipper Lorries and one Maruthi Car and JCB was loading the Tipper Lorries with sand. When questioned by the complainant and his friends, the accused persons said to the complainant that he has no authority to question them. Then the vehicle numbers were noted down and FIR came to be registered against six persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.10 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. So also the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner / accused No.10.
5. Perusing the FIR, six person names are mentioned and also the FIR goes to show unknown accused Nos.7 and 8. Looking into the FIR and the complaint averments, it is not the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner was also found at the spot as submitted. It is only on the basis of the other accused persons subsequently the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.10. As per the prosecution case, the vehicles and loaded sand were seized in presence of punch witnesses 6. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and not involved in the alleged offence and he was not at the spot. In view of the said material, as the offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner / accused No.10 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) and 21 of MMRD Act, 1957, Section 31(r) of KMMC Rule 1994 and Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.99/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. 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 UN
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

Sri Sannaswamy vs State By Yelsur Police Station Hassan

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
26 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal