Karnataka High Court
Sri C B Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2016
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4685/2016
BETWEEN :
1. Sri C.B.Muniraju,
S/o Byrappa,
32 years,
R/o Chakarasanahalli,
Narsapur Hobli,
Taluk & Dist. Kolar-563 101.
2. Sri Venkatesh,
S/o Munibasappa,
Age 25 years,
R/o Chakarasanahalli,
Narsapur Hobli,
Taluk & Dist. Kolar-563 101. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, Adv.,)
AND :
State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Vemgal Police Station,
Vemgal, Dist. Kolar.
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
-2-
(By Sri B.J.Eswarappa, 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 Cr.No.133/2016 of Vemgal P.S.,
Kolar, which is registered for the offence p/u/s 143,
147, 427, 341, 379, 353 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC as well
as Rules 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 1994 and Section 73 of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners in this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeks to grant them anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 133/2016 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994; under Section 73 of the Land Revenue Act and under Sections 427, 341, 143, 307, 379, 353, 149 and 147 of IPC.
-3-
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the complaint, the FIR and other papers produced along with the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged. They are neither named in the complaint nor in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners are neither the owners nor drivers of any vehicle which is alleged to have been used for filtering sand from the soil of a tank. However, petitioners are prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court while granting bail. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State submits that petitioners along with other accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession -4- Rules, 1994; under Section 73 of the Land Revenue Act and under Sections 427, 341, 143, 307, 379, 353, 149 and 147 of IPC, which are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. He submits investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail at this stage, they would certainly hamper investigation and may not extend cooperation for investigation of the crime and further they may try to tamper prosecution witnesses. In such an event it would not only affect the fair trial but also cause prejudice to the case of prosecution. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail petition.
5. Based on the complaint lodged by the driver of the Jeep attached to the Tahsildar, Vemgal Taluk, Kolar District, a criminal case in Crime No. 133/2016 has been registered by the respondent-police against 55 persons and others. Petitioners are neither named in the complaint nor in the FIR. Incriminating material -5- objects such as vehicle used for filtering sand from soil of the tank and sand carried in those vehicles have already been seized by the respondent-police. The allegations in the complaint is that when accused persons were engaged in filtering sand from the soil of a tank they were chased by the police along with the revenue officials on the basis of the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of the District. Owners and drivers of the lorry and other persons engaged in filtering sand from soil tried to escape from the scene of incident. Fortunately, when some other vehicle came on the way, drivers of the vehicles slowed down their lorry and police and revenue officials were able to proceed ahead of the lorry and stopped the lorry. At that time, driver of the lorry made an attempt to run over the Government vehicle and caused damage to the vehicles. As stated earlier, these petitioners are not named either in the complaint or in the FIR. No specific overt act is alleged against these petitioners. Incriminating material objects -6- such as vehicles used for filtering sand from soil and sand carried in the vehicle have already been seized by the respondent-police. Petitioners are neither owners nor drivers of the lorry engaged in filtering sand and transporting the same. It is submitted that petitioners are prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court while granting bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 133/2016 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 42 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994; under Section 73 of the Land Revenue Act and under Sections 427, 341, 143, 307, 379, 353, 149 and 147 of IPC, the -7- respondent-police are directed to release them, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall surrender/appear before the respondent-police within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for all of them for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioners as well their sureties shall furnish proof of their address and identity with photos such as ration card, voters' I.D, aadhar card, etc., to ensure the presence of the petitioners at the time of trial.-8-
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Police as and when their presence is required and extend cooperation for investigation of the crime, if any.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court till filing of final report by the respondent-
police.
(v) They shall appear before the concerned
Court on all the future dates of
hearing, except on a day when they are exempted for valid reason.
(vi) The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(vii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
(viii) The petitioners shall surrender original RC, insurance policy, permit and DL of -9- the driver before the concerned Court and the same shall be kept in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial. In the event of petitioners disobeying any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the concerned Court for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl