Karnataka High Court
Thippeswamy S/O Basavaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102206/2021
BETWEEN:
1. THIPPESWAMY
S/O BASAVARAJA,
AGE 28 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY
BEARING NO.KA-35/C-2980,
R/O. NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE,
GIRIYAMMANAHALLI,
TQ/HOBLI: CHALLAKERE,
DIST: CHITRADURGA-515281.
2. T. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. THIPPESWAMY,
AGE 36 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY
BEARING NO. KA-35/C-2980,
R/O. 20 GIRIYAMMANAHALLI,
TQ/HOBLI: CHALLAKERE,
DIST: CHITRADURGA-515281.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH KUDUTHINI P.S. BALLARI),
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA ,
BENCH AT DHARWAD - 580 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION, GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.134/2021
REGISTERED BY KUDUTHINI POLICE STATION
BALLARI DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS. 3, 6(A), 7 OF
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955,
SECTIONS 3, 4, 6, 8 OF KARNATAKA
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (MAINTENANCE OF
ACCOUNTS DISPLAY OF PRICE AND STOCKS)
ORDER, 1981 AND SECTIONS 3, 4, 12, 18 AND
19 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
(PUBLIC DISTRIBUTIONS SYSTEM) PUBLIC
CONTROL ORDER, 2016, AND SECTION 420 OF
IPC, PENDING INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal 3 Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.134/2021 of Kudathini Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6(A), 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3, 4, 6, 8 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts Display of Price and Stocks) Order,1981 and Sections 3, 4, 12, 18 and 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distributions System) Public Control Order, 2016.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sri Syed Sikandar, Food Inspector, filed a complaint against petitioners and another stating that on 27.09.2021 when he was in the central place, at about 4.15 a.m., the Assistant Commissioner received an information that 4 some unknown persons have stored the PSD rice in a Lorry and Rice Mill at Hosadaroji Village, Kampli-Kuduthini Road. The Assistant Commissioner directed the complainant and Tahsildar to conduct a raid. On the basis of this direction, complainant and his staff along with two Panchas went to Raghavendra Rice Mill, situated at Kampli-Kuduthini Road, Hosadaroji Village and found that one lorry was parked in front of the Rice Mill, on seeing the complainant, driver of the said lorry ran away from the spot. On verification of the lorry they found 54 plastic bags containing PDS rice, in total 24.30 quintals worth of Rs.36,450/-. After that on search of the Rice Mill, complainant found 13 plastic bags of PDS rice of 45 kg. each, 67 plastic bags of rice weighing 30.15 quintals worth of Rs.45,225/- and 19 5 plastic bags of AUDI brand rice containing 25 kg. each worth of Rs.11,875/- and 13 Royal plastic bags Royal Bullet Brand rice containing 25 Kg. each worth of Rs.8,125/- kept in Rice Mill. After taking samples of rice, the complaint came to be registered before the Kuduthini Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners, who are owner and Driver of the lorry, apprehending their arrest have filed Crl. Misc. No.624/2021 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, by order dated 16.10.2021. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High 6 Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
4. It would be the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were not present on spot at the time of raid by the complainant and others. Since the materials are seized, petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. Petitioners are ready to co-operate with the Investigation Officer during investigation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State contended that, since from the date of 7 registration of the case petitioners are absconding and they are required for custodial interrogation. Though the materials are seized, investigation is still under progress and at this stage if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, this Court has gone through the FIR, Complaint and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. The complainant - Food Inspector found PDS rice in the lorry bearing registration 8 No. KA-35/K-2908 and in the Rise Mill of accused No.1. Petitioner No.1 is the Driver and petitioner No.2 is the owner of the said lorry. Since the lorry and the PDS rice have been seized by the police petitioners are apprehending their arrest. The offences alleged against petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Petitioners have undertaken to co-operate with the police during investigation. The main objections of the prosecution are that, if petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said objections can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the counsel, this 9 Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.134/2021 of respondent Police Station with the following conditions:
i. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. Petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall voluntarily appear before the 10 Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and execute personal bonds.
iii. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
iv. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
v. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*