IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8117/2018 Between:
Varadaraju S/o. Hanumanthegowda Aged about 50 years R/at Kodala Village, Chinakurali Hobli Pandavapura Taluk Mandya District – 571 436. ...Petitioner (By Sri M.Y. Sreenivasan, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka by Srirangapatna Police Station Mandya District R/p by SPP, HCK Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, 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.403/2015 of Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 42, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994 4(1A) and 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 and under Section 379 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.403/2015 of Srirangapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994, 4(1A) and 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 and under Section 379 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 11.07.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. on credible information, the police went to search the vehicle bearing No.KA-01- B-597 and there they noticed that in the said vehicle, they were transporting sand illegally and by seeing the police, the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot. On the basis of the report, a case came to be registered.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima-facie there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and was illegally transporting the sand. He further alleged that the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Drawing my attention to the order of the trial Court, learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court has rejected the bail application only on the ground that the chassis number does not tally with the number which has been mentioned in the FIR and other records. He further submitted that he is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court and offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner – accused No.2 is involved in transporting of sand illegally and he is a habitual offender and if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner – accused No.2, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
7. As could be seen from the records, the alleged offence though has taken place during 2015, but the said offences is not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The trial court has rejected the bail application only on the ground that the Chassis number and Engine number mentioned in the FIR does not tally with the documents produced by the petitioner and that is not a valid ground to reject the bail application. While considering the bail application, the trial court has to consider the fact that whether the presence of the accused can be secured to face the trial; whether he is likely to abscond or tamper the prosecution evidence and the gravity of the offence. But those aspects have not been mentioned in the order of the trial court. Moreover, the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and even the petitioner – accused No.2 was not present when the said goods vehicle has been seized. Under such circumstance, I am of the opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, accused No.2 – petitioner, if ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.2 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.403/2015 of Srirangapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1994, 4(1A) and 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 and under Section 379 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Agency is directed to enlarge him on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Police.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall not indulge in similar type of offence.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station till the charge-sheet is filed.
6. He is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
Sd/- JUDGE nms