Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2018

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                        1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
                     BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9532/2017

BETWEEN:

1.   BABU
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
     S/O SRINIVASA GOWDA,

2.   RAJU @ NAGARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     S/O KARI GOWDA,

3.   HARISHA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
     S/O PUTTE GOWDA,

4.   KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     S/O PUTTE GOWDA,

5.   NARASIMHA
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
     S/O KRISHNE GOWDA,

6.   SANDEEP
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
     S/O LATE NAGARAJE GOWDA,

     PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
     R/O KORAVANAGUDI VILLAGE,
                          2



     HONAKERE HOBLI,
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571432

7.   PRABHAKAR @ LAARA
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     S/O RANGAIAH,
     R/O BOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571432

8.   RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     S/O RAJE GOWDA,

9.   CHANDRA
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
     S/O GANESHA

     PETITIONERS NO.8 TO 9 ARE
     R/O KORAVANAGUDI VILLAGE,
     HONAKERE HOBLI,
     NAGAMANGALA TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571432

10. SOMU @ DEADLY SOMU
    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
    S/O RAME GOWDA
    R/O KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
    PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
    MANDYA DISTRICT-571434
                                 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.HANUMAIAH H C., ADV.)
                             3



AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
                                   ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME
NO.255/2017 OF NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/ RULE 3,42,44
OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSIONS RULE,
1994, SECTION 4(1A) AND 21(1-5) OF MINES AND
MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT, 1957
AND SECTION 143,353,307,506,379 R/W 149 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 10 and 12 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 149 and 353 of IPC registered in respondent police 4 station Crime No.255/2017. But subsequently the offence under Section 307, 506 and 379 read with 149 of IPC, so also, Sections 3, 42, 44 of Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules and Section 4(1A), 21(1-5) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, were also included in the case.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

4. Looking to the complaint averments it is stated that the petitioners loaded the sand in two tractors and the complainant along with another person 5 was proceeding on the two wheeler vehicle and they stopped the Drivers of the said vehicles and when they were making enquiry that from where they have brought the said sand, in the meanwhile some 8-10 persons came in a Qualis vehicle, so also, another vehicle and they were shouting why they stopped the Tractors. Therefore, as the number of persons are 8-10, because of the fear the complainant and another person went away from the said place. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly case came to be registered only for offences punishable under Sections 143, 353, 149 of IPC and subsequently, other offences were also added in the case.

5. Petitioners have denied the allegations made in the complaint contending that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioners have undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. 6 Insofar as the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, actually looking into the complaint averments there is no specific allegation that they were assaulted by those persons, who gathered at the spot. The alleged offense are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Tractor along with loaded sand said to have been seized in the presence of panch witnesses. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.255/2017 registered for the above said offences subject to the following conditions:

i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- 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 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioners have to 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 BSR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court