Karnataka High Court
K.Muniraju vs State By Bannur Police Station on 20 October, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6439/2016
BETWEEN:
K Muniraju
Aged about 59 years
R/at No.5, 2nd Main Road
Giridarshini Badavane
Mysore-577 132. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri C N Raju, Adv.)
AND:
State by Bannur Police Station
Mysore
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri B Visweswaraiah, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
the event of his arrest in Cr. No.199/2016 of Bannur
P.S., Mysuru District, for the offences P/U/S 3, 7 of
Essential Commodities Act and Section 3(2), (1), 4, 5, 8,
2
9 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage
Accounts Maintaining Value Notification Order 14,18 of
Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution
System) Public Control Order and Sections 168, 169,
107, 184, 166, 278, 480, 120B, 420, 464, 403, 477A,
415, 405, 409, 463, 167, 201, 425, 421 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is 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 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 3(2), (1), 4, 5, 8, 9 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order 1981, Sections 14 and 18 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order and Sections 168, 169, 107, 184, 166, 278, 480, 120B, 420, 464, 403, 477A, 415, 405, 409, 463, 167, 201, 425 and 3 421 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.199/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that the one Sri.M.E.Mohan, officer from the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation has lodged the complaint against the petitioner alleging that he received credible information that purchasing office of KFCSC at Bannur was mixing sand in the ragi. Accordingly, complainant and his staff raided the godown, at that time, petitioner and 6 coolie workers were present in the godown. When complainant told the petitioner that he received such information, petitioner told that in the year 2015-2016, nearly about 37,961.37 quintals of ragi was purchased from agriculturists and 12817.84 quintals of ragi was distributed up to 22.7.2016. Thereafter, complainant found that 25143.53 quintals of ragi was stored in the 4 godown. After verification of accounts in the godown he came to know that upto 22.7.2016 only 12817.84 quintals ragi was distributed and from 23.7.2016 morning 633.80 quintals of ragi was distributed, totaling to 13451 quintals of ragi. He has further alleged that 50 to 60 bags of sand was found in the godown and sand was also spread on the ragi bags found in the godown. The complainant further alleged that petitioner being the officer of said godown, made criminal conspiracy to mix the sand along with ragi for his wrongful gain and thereby, cheated the public and also the Government. When the complainant enquired the petitioner he has confessed and given written statement. Accordingly, said godown was seized and the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences mentioned above.
5
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioner has not committed the said offences. There is false implication. He is also suffering from paralytic stroke. Petitioner would co-operate with the investigating agency in the further investigation of the case. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and even the materials show that 50-60 bags of sand were found in the godown and even the sand fell on ragi 6 bags and the same were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. By mixing sand in the ragi bags public has been cheated. Hence, it is a serious offence and petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the complaint averments and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Mysuru, it clearly shows that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution against the petitioner for the alleged offences. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. 7
8. Looking to the seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion to allow and grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp