Karnataka High Court
Karigowda @ Masale Kariyappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3647 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
KARIGOWDA @ MASALE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O.LATE KARIYAIAH
RESIDENT OF KONASALE VILLAGE
KOPPA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 425.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHO BY KOPPA POLICE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 425.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, 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 CR.NO.58/2016 OF KOPPA P.S.,
MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC,
SECTIONS 4(1) 1(a), 21, 22 OF M.M.R.D.ACT AND SECTIONS 3(1),
42(1) OF K.M.M.C.R.ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
First information report do not disclose the name of the petitioner. However, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 - Eshwar and Kumar were induced to do quarry work in a Government land without there being any licence and they have loaded the stones to the tractor. On seeing the police, the said persons ran away from the spot along with others who were also working there. Subsequently, it appears that the name of this petitioner was also included in the remand application. But learned counsel has seriously submitted that there is absolutely no sort of allegations made against this petitioner and the role played by him either in the first information report or in the remand application filed insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. On careful perusal of the remand application and FIR, accused Nos.1 and 2 have also divulged the name of this petitioner. There is no material to show that what role exactly the petitioner has played in the alleged offences. On seeing the order of the trial Court at paragraph No.6 the trial Court has observed that the 3 petitioner is none other than the owner of the tractor in which the stones were being loaded. But at this stage, it is too difficult to draw inference of guilt or offence being committed by the petitioner. Actually who was the driver of the said tractor whether it is well within the knowledge of the owner that the tractor was used for the commission of the offence, these facts have to be established by the prosecution during the course of investigation or at the time of trial stage. In my opinion, there is no strong reason to reject the bail.
2. Under the above said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.58/2016 on the file of respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Sections 4(1) 1(a), 21, 22 of MMRD Act, 1957 and Sections 3(1) 42(1) of KMMCR Act, 1994 subject to the following conditions: 4
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as when required for the purpose of investigation and interrogation.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB