IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7740/2017 BETWEEN:
Ravikumar, S/o late Channappa, Aged about 47 years, R/at Bommanayakanahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan – 573 201.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Roopesha B., Adv.) AND:
State by Sakaleshpura Town Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
...Respondent (By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.101/2016 (C.C.No.336/2017) of Sakaleshpura Town Police Station, Hassan, for the offence p/u/s 4(1A), 21 of M.M.R.D. Act. and Sec.379 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 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 alleged offences punishable under Section 4(1A), 21 of the MMRD (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC r/w registered in respondent police station Crime No.101/2016.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Madhu M.C., Police Officer, Sakaleshpura, filed the complaint wherein he has stated that he was on duty along with other staff at that point of time he received credible information through phone from the informer stating that some unknown persons are illegally mining the sand from Malahalli, immediately complainant informed to his staff and also panch witnesses and at 9.45 P.M. all of them assembled near Malahalli and Ramenahalli Junction and at that point of time three lorries loaded with sand were coming one by one, when the respondent police stopped the lorries he enquired details of the drivers of the said lorries, they informed that Syed Khadar is the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-13-B-4929, Prakasha is the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-13A-6480 and Siddappa is the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-13A-5762. Thereafter, respondent police enquired the drivers about the permit for transportation of the sand. The drivers of the lorries informed that they does not own, there was no permit and no royalty had been paid to the government for transporting the said sand in the said vehicles. Hence, the drivers were arrested and lorries along with the sand were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6 and in the F.I.R. it is also mentioned as owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-13A-5762. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6 and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is the owner of the lorry mentioned i.e. No.3 in the complaint and he is not concerned with other two lorries. Counsel also submitted that he is having the permit. He made over the copy of the said permit along with the original and hence made the submission that at the time of the raid, the driver has not at all produced the said documents. Hence, he submitted, the transportation of sand is as per the valid documents and there is no offence committed. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that if the petitioner is holding the permit then nothing prevented him to produce the same before the police during investigation. He also made the submission that the present petitioner was not at all available to the police during the period of investigation. It is also his submission that three truck loads of sand was being transported illegally without having any valid documents. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner, so also I have perused the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the said documents original as well as the copy, the time within which transportation of sand is permitted, there is a over-writing and the figure 6 is in blue ink and rest of the figures are in black ink. Even, there is no initial put for the said correction in original as well as in the copy. Therefore, it prima-facie appears that to change the time of transporting of the sand and to bring it within the time such correction appears to have been made. Apart from that it is submitted by the learned HCGP that during the period of investigation, the present petitioner was not at all available to the Investigating Officer. Looking to these materials placed on record and conduct of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
However, at this stage, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused No.6 is prepared to surrender before the concerned trial Court. In case if he surrenders and made a bail application, the concerned Court has to consider it on priority basis and try to dispose of the same immediately.
Sd/- JUDGE Sv/-