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

Mr Sudeesh Kumar And Others vs The State – Through The Circle

High Court Of Karnataka|14 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8715/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Sudeesh Kumar Aged 27 years S/o Damordara Poojary R/at Shivakripa House Kayarkatta Padumarnad Village Mudumarnad Post Mangaluru Taluk-574 213.
2. Mr. Prabhakar Poojary Aged 31 years S/o Late Hariyappa Poojary R/at Mura House Ontikatte, Marpady Village Moodbidri Mangaluru Taluk-574 227.
3. Mr. Ajay Jain Aged 26 years S/o Raviraj Jain R/at Baddi House Miyaru Village Karkala Taluk-574 107. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri P P Hegde, Adv.) AND:
The State – through the Circle Inspector of Police Belthangady Circle Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.81/2016 (C.C.No.103/2017) of Venoor P.S., Dakshina Kannada District, for the offences P/U/Ss 3, 36, 42, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Sections 21(4), 21(4A), 4, 4(1A) of Mines and Mineral Regulation and Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Rules 3, 36, 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 21(4), 21(4A), 4, 4(1A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, so also, under Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.81/2016.
2. The main allegation of the prosecution as per the complaint averments are on the information of the general public, the officials of Geology department along with revenue officials and police visited the spot at Hosangadi village and found that sand to the extent of 240 cubic metres was stored in the land bearing Sy.No.76/4 illegally without any valid licence. Accordingly, in the presence of panchas and other officers, mahazar was conducted and said sand was seized. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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.
5. The petitioners have contended in the petition that they are innocent and not committed the alleged offences and there is a false implication. They are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Rules 3, 36, 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 21(4), 21(4A), Sections 4, 4(1A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, so also, under Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent- police station Crime No.81/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioners shall 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 bkp
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

Mr Sudeesh Kumar And Others vs The State – Through The Circle

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
14 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal