IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION No.3322 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
PAKKIRAPPA, S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O. U.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY SENIOR GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINES AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, DAVANGERE, RPTD. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITINER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C. NO.52/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A) OF MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT ACT AND RULES 3(1) 42(1) OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.C. No.52 of 2019 registered on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Harapanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Rules 3(1) and 42(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. On the complaint filed by the Officer of the Department of Mines and Geology, Davanagere, PCR No.84/2018 came to be registered on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli. Cognizance for the offenses punishable under Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of MMDR Act 1957 and Rule 3(1) and 42(1) of KMMC Rules 1994 was taken and a case was registered against the accused petitioner.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner had established illegal stone crushing unit in the government land bearing Sy.No.399/E1 of Uchhangidurga Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, without obtaining valid license and he was carrying stone quarrying operation illegally. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner had illegally transported 97 metric tons of stones without permission and thereby caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs.29,100/-.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offence and there is no material to show that the petitioner has been carrying stone quarrying business in the aforesaid survey number. He submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the inspection took place. He further submits that the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the court while releasing him on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP contends that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner and the petitioner has caused loss to the government by illegally putting up the stone crushing unit and transporting the stones without any valid permit. He submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, then he may misuse the liberty and commit similar offence. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had installed a stone crushing unit illegally in the government land in Sy.No.399/E1 situated at Uchhangidurga Village, Harapanahalli Taluk and by transporting about 97 metric tons of stones without taking any permission, caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs.29,100/-.
8. From the averments made in the complaint, it is made out that without obtaining any license from the concerned authority, a stone crushing unit was installed in the aforesaid survey number and mining activities were being illegally carried. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not present at the spot and he was not doing any such act as alleged and he has not put up the crushing unit.
9. Whether the petitioner is involved in the aforesaid activity is a matter which has to be established in the due course of trial. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. By imposing suitable conditions, the petitioner may be released on bail to meet the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER In the event of arrest of the petitioner in C.C. No.52 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of MMDR Act 1957 and Rule 3(1) and 42(1) of KMMC Rules 1994, pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harappanahalli, Davanagere, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions :
(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.
(iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
(iv) He shall not indulge in similar type of activities.
(v) The petitioner shall be regular in attending the court proceedings.
(vi) If any of the above conditions are violated, then the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of this bail order.
Snc sd/- JUDGE