Karnataka High Court
A Prakash Reddy S/O Thippa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829
CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100968 OF 2024 (438)
BETWEEN:
A.PRAKASH REDDY S/O THIPPA REDDY,
AGE: 50 YEARS, HOUSE NO.109,
OWNER OF CONSUMER STORE NO.126,
R/O. WARD NO.13, NEAR ANJINEYA TEMPLE,
BANNAPPA BHAVI STREET,
BALLARI-583101.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BRUCE PET POLICE STATION, BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by DHARWAD-580011.
SAROJA - RESPONDENT
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
DHARWAD
SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BRUCE PET POLICE, BALLARI
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.18/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
BRUCE PET POLICE STATION, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 3, 6A, 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955
& ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829
CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024
ORDER
Petitioner/ accused filed bail petition U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the case registered in Brucepet Police Station Crime No. 18/2024.
2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail in terms of Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.?
2) What order?
5. On careful perusal of the records, it would go to show that on the strength of the complaint filed by Mallikarjun son of Shanmukhappa, Food Inspector of Kurugodu Taluk, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No. 18/2024 for the offence punishable U/s 7, 3 and 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C. Act' for brevity). The complaint allegations are to the effect that on 13.01.2024 at 4.30 p.m. Smt. Shakeena, Joint -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829 CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024 Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Ballari, called to her office and informed about the Fair Shop No. 126 which has stored the rice bags meant to public distribution for sale to the customers on higher price. On such information, the complainant proceeded to Brucepet Police Station and along with the staff and panchas, went to the Fair Price Shop No. 126 at 5.15 p.m. On verification in the Fair Price Shop No. 126, it was found that 180 rice bags were packed in plastic covers which were meant for public distribution. The Government will distribute the rice in gunny bags, whereas the seized rice were found in 180 plastic bags of 45 kgs each totally amounting to Rs.1,86,300/-. Out of the rice bags, 1 kg sample was taken. The sample rice and remaining bags were seized under panchanama. On coming to the Police Station, he filed the complaint. On the basis of said complaint, case was registered in Crime No. 18/2024 for the aforementioned offences against the owner of Fair Price Shop No. 126.
6. Learned HCGP has filed detailed objections opposing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner contending that the rice bags meant for public distribution were illegally stored in 180 plastic bags totally weighing 8100 kg amounting to -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829 CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024 Rs.1,86,300/-. It is not in dispute that accused was the owner of Fair Price Shop No. 126 and the seized rice bags were from the said shop. The explanation offered by the accused cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
7. On careful reading of the complaint allegations, it would go to show that accused was involved in this case since he appears to be the owner of Fair Price Shop No. 126. Accused was not present at the time when the raid was effected in the Fair Price Shop No. 126. If at all the accused was present, there was no any difficulty for the complainant to show name of the accused in the complaint itself and based on it, the name of accused would have also been found in the FIR registered against him. The records would reveal that show cause notice was given to the accused after filing the complaint, on 24.01.2024, i.e., after 11 days from the date of filing the complaint. It means that accused was totally unaware of the alleged raid and seizure of 180 rice bags in the plastic cover and he was made known about said seizure only by way of issuing show cause notice on 24.01.2024. Accused has offered his explanation stating that he has lifted totally 125.70 quintals -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829 CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024 of rice from K.F.C.S.C. on 11.01.2024 and the total stock available in the shop was 65.70 quintals. In all, there was storage of 191.40 quintals rice bags with bill and C.B. Copy.
8. It is the contention of the accused that about 65 quintals of rice out of the stored, rice had fallen to the ground due to rats biting to the rice bags. Therefore, he has stored the same in plastic bags and the same was only meant for public distribution of the rice to the public who were the card holders and not to the public. Therefore, there is no any contravention of the material stored in the Fair Price Shop meant for public distribution. The seized Fair Price Shop was reopened and the remaining rice bags were distributed to the card holders. Whether the said explanation offered by the accused can be legally sustained or not and whether penal action is attracted as contemplated in the FIR drawn against him are all matters of trial. The offences alleged against accused are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The accused is the permanent resident of the address given in the cause title is not seriously disputed. The presence of accused either before the I.O. or before the Court can be secured through the process of law. The apprehension of the learned HCGP can be met by imposing -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829 CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024 suitable conditions. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner/ accused U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
In the event of accused being arrested in connection with Brucepet Police Station Crime No. 18/2024 for the offences punishable U/s 7, 3, 6(A) of E.C. Act, is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond and surety bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions.
1) Accused shall not leave jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission;
2) Accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
3) Accused shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation; -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5829 CRL.P No. 100968 of 2024
4) Accused shall give attendance before the Investigating Officer once in a month, i.e., on first day of every month, between 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed or further orders of the case, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVV CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20