Sri. Ramesh vs The State on 16 December, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ramesh vs The State on 16 December, 2021

Bench: K.Natarajan

                           1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6578/2021

BETWEEN

SRI. RAMESH
S/O SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
LABOURER,
R/O.KALLUGUNDI,
BEHIND SKANDA DABA,
KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577548.           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE
      BY THE KADUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      BANGALORE-560001.

2.   DAYANANDA A S
     S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA A J,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     REPRESENTING
     STATE MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
     AIT CIRCLE,
     JYOTHINAGAR,
     CHIKKAMAGALORE-577102.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP
 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                              2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH PCR.NO.43/2021,
WHICH CAME TO REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.1097/2021 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KADUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT AND RULES.3(1),36(3),43,44 OF
KMMC RULES.

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

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in connection with PCR.No.43/2021, which came to be registered as C.C.NO.1097/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1),4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act and Rules 3(1), 36(3), 43, 44 of KMMC rules.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Member Secretary, District Task Force Committee got 3 credible information that the stone mining was being done illegally in gomala land bearing Sy.No.39 of Chowdlapur Village, Kadur Taluk. The officials of Mining and Geology Department along with complaiant Subramani and panchas went to the spot on 28.01.2021 and found marks of illegal mining of stones, there were marks of blasting of stones by using explosives extraction of 150 metric tonne building stones and also used to sell the same without any permit or license and also without paying any royalty. Thereby causing loss of Rs.52,500/- to the State Exchequer. Hence prayed for taking cognizance. On the complaint filed by the Mine and Minerals department, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance and registered case in CC No.1097/21 and issued process. Hence, petitioner apprehending arrest in the hands of the police. Therefore, the Police made hectic effort to arrest this petitioner. He moved the bail petition before learned Sessions Judge which came to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no allegation against him. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition.

6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, of course the alleged offence was committed on 28.01.2021 in Sy No.39. of Chowdlapura village, Kadur Taluk and it is alleged that 150 metric tonne building stones were extracted and mining work was being done illegally without permission. However, the mines and minerals department already seized the area and filed private complaint on 12.2.2021 taken cognizance on 30.3.2021 and NBW issued against the petitioner thereby the petitioner apprehending his arrest. Therefore, without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, though the offence is non bailable, the same is not 5 punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following:

ORDER The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable in connection with PCR.No.43/2021, which was registered in C.C.NO.1097/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act and Rules.3(1), 36(3), 43, 44 of KMMC rules, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court/police within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court