Karnataka High Court
Anwar vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: Budihal.R.B
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL.R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7454/2013
BETWEEN:
ANWAR S/O AMIR SAB
AGED ABOUT 59 UEARS
RESIDENT OF HIREHALLI,
ORDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK - 572 101
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.CHETHAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KYATHASANDRA POLICE
TUMKUR - 572 101
TUMKUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, GP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner on bail in the event of
his arrest in Cr. No.334/13 of Kyathasandra Police,
Tumkur, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
and Section 12 of Karnataka Essential Commodities
Public Distribution System Public Control Order 1992
and Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 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 by the respondent - Police in Cr.No.334/2013 for the offences punishable Sections 7 and 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 12 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System Public Control Order 1992 and Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that on 12.11.2013, the respondent - Police got information that in front of Anwar House, Hirehalli, driver i.e., accused No.2 and cleaner-accused No.3 of lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-B-6348 and the petitioner herein were storing blue kerosene which is meant for distribution to holder of Padithara card to sell the same in black market. When the respondent - Police reached the place, noticing them, petitioner 3 herein fled away and accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested. On enquiry, they revealed that in order to gain unlawfully, they were selling blue kerosene to the petitioner herein which was meant for Padithara Card Holder and they were transporting the blue kerosene in the aforesaid lorry from Devanagundi, Hosakote to Chalkere. The respondent - police have recovered four cans and 60 liters of blue kerosene from the spot. Based on the said information, case is registered against the present petitioner and two other accused persons.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the petitioner is innocent he has not at all involved in the alleged offences. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have been already released on bail. Hence, learned counsel submitted that by imposing any reasonable conditions he may be released on bail.
4
5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and blue kerosene has been recovered from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 3 and the present petitioner is not at all available for the police for further investigation. There is a prima-facie material as against the present petitioner and he is the main accused and hence submitted that he is not entitled to be granted with the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence submitted to reject the petition.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced on record. Blue kerosene has already been recovered from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 3 as per the case of the prosecution and it is not in dispute that accused Nos.2 and 3 who were transporting blue kerosene, have already been released on bail. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are exclusively triable by 5 the court of Magistrate. The petitioner has made out a case that there is reasonable apprehension of his having arrested at the hands of respondent - police. With regard to the apprehension of the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses, reasonable conditions may be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. In case if there is any violation of the conditions, the prosecution will always be at liberty to approach the Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Therefore, looking at the entire material on record and the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner by allowing the petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the respondent - police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.334/13 of the said Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 6 and Section 12 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System Public Control Order 1992 and Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner has to execute a personal bond for `25,000/- and he has to furnish one surety for the like sum before the concerned Court/Investigating Officer; (2) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
(3) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer whenever called for; (4) The petitioner shall give attendance between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. in the respondent
- Police Station till the completion of the investigation and (5) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute the personal bond and surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/*