IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2672/2019 BETWEEN:
Chandranaik Aged about 58 years, S/o Totyanaik, R/of Bevinahalli Dodda Thanda, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District – 583 131. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Geologist, Office of the Senior Geologist, Mines and Geological Department, Davanagere.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.47/2019 (FR/PCR No.74/2018) for the offence P/U/S 4(1), 4(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act and U/S. 3(1) and Section 42(1) of The Karnataka Mines and Mineral Rules, 1994.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is taken up out of turn on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the marriage of the son of the petitioner has been fixed.
2. This petition has been filed by petitioner- accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in CC No.47/2019 (PCR No.74/2018) pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harpanahalli, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) and 4(1-A) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMRD Act’) and under Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘KMMC Rules’).
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.
4. The gist of the complaint is that a private complaint was registered by the officials alleging that they inspected the land bearing Sy.no.1-B of Uchchangidurga Village, Harapanahalli Taluk which belongs to Government. On 13.07.2018, they saw illegal stone quarry being carried out by the petitioner- accused. There they noticed that the petitioner-accused by removing 8595 metric tone stone in the said Government land had been quarrying business and thereby, caused huge loss to the tune of Rs.5,15,700/- to the State exchequer and thereby, committed offences under Section 4(1) and 4(1-A) of MMRD Act and under Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of KMMC Rules, 1994. On the basis of private complaint, case has been registered and the matter has been referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and filing of final report.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner-accused was not present at the time of said inspection. No articles belonging to the petitioner has been seized while inspecting in the said place. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only on the suspicion and no other material has been shown to implicate the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, they prayed to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner has involved in the illegal stone quarry in the Government land and that the petitioner has removed 8595 metric tone stone in the said Government land and has caused huge loss and income to the State exchequer. He further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in similar type of activites. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it discloses that there are allegations as against the petitioner. The petitioner having involved in stone quarrying in the Government land is the matter which can be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The said private complaint is registered only on the basis of suspicion. No records and articles belonging to the petitioner has been recovered. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under the facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of discussions held by me above, petition is allowed and petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in CC No.47/2019 (PCR No.74/2018) pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harpanahalli, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) and 4(1- A) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
3. He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
5. He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities. If he is indulged in similar type of activities during the pendency of the trial, the bail is liable to be cancelled.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. Petitioner/accused shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN