Jaffar Sadiq Maniyar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jaffar Sadiq Maniyar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2022

Bench: K. Natarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2022

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101809/2022

BETWEEN:

JAFFAR SADIQ MANIYAR
S/O BASHEER AHMED MANIYAR
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ANGADI SANGANNA CAMP
WARD NO. 7 GANGAVATHI TQ
KOPPAL DIST -583227
                                                  .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH GANGAVATHI P .S. KOPPAL)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD-580001
                                                 .. RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP.)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING
TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.2 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.88/2022 REGISTERED BY
GANGAVATHI POLICE STATION, KOPPAL, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 3, 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, PENDING
BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL (JN DN) AND JMFC KOPPAL.
                                   2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent/State.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.88/2022 registered by the Gangavati Police for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

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

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Pawankumar N. Nilogal, Food Inspector of Gangavathi, filed complaint to the police alleging that on 30.04.2022, he received credible information that PDS rice is being transported illegally in a vehicle on Gangavathi- 3 Raichur main road. Accordingly, he went near the Gangavathi- Raichur road and near Shankukhappa Rice Mill there was a lorry bearing registration No.KA.37.A.6293 parked. On verifying it, it contained rice bags weighing 35 to 45kgs each. On enquiry with the driver, he revealed his name as Mohammad Gouse and he has informed that the petitioner is the owner of the goods. On verification, it was found that the rice totally weighed 26 quintals. The same was seized by the Food Inspector. The police making hectic efforts to arrest, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before the leaned Sessions Judge which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. His name is implicated on the voluntary statement of accused No.1, who is already granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions. Vehicle and rice is already seized by the police. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail. 4

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

7. On perusal, admittedly, the Food Inspector has already seized the lorry along with the rice bags weighing 35 to 45Kg each totally 26 quintals. The name of this petitioner is implicated by accused No.1, who is said to be the driver and who is already granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, on his voluntary statement. The matter requires detailed investigation. At this stage, the Court cannot presume that the petitioner has committed any offence under the Essential Commodities Act. Though the alleged offence is non-bailable but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if anticipatory bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The respondent- Gangavathi Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.88/2022 subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

v. The petitioner shall deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

vi. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.

If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE kmv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court