Karnataka High Court
Raju @ P Balaraj And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200639/2020
Between:
1. Raju @ P.Balaraj S/o Kristayya Peddaboyi
Age 23 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o Peddaporalla Village,
Tq. Makthal, Dist. Narayanpeth (A.P).
2. Srinivasalu S/o Tippanna,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Peddaporalla Village,
Tq. Makthal, Dist. Narayanpeth (A.P.)
... Petitioners
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka through
Saidapur Police Station,
Now represented by the
Additional State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to allow the petition and
direct the respondent police to release the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail, in the event of their
arrest in connection with Crime No.91/2020 of Saidapur
Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 379
of IPC, now pending on the file of Hon'ble Civil Judge and
JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Yadgir.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction to the respondent - Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest.
2. Brief facts of the case as per FIS is as under; The petitioner No.1 is the driver and the petitioner No.2 is the owner of the tractor engine No.BLA1869 Chassis No.KBTM30SNVNTA16772 and trailer bearing Reg.No.AP-22/X-7018 and it is alleged against them that they have extracted sand and it was transporting the same in the tractor without there being any licence 3 or permission from the competent authorities and also without payment of royalty. Therefore, the tractor was intercepted by the police and accordingly a crime is registered as Crime No.91/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioners that they were transporting the sand in a tractor without licence or permission and without making payment of royalty and therefore submitted that whether this offence constitutes or not but the allegation is made that the theft was committed and for the alleged offence, the maximum punishment to be imposed is three years of imprisonment and therefore, considering all these aspects, prays to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the 4 petitioners have extracted the sand from the water stream and caused ecological imbalance and had not paid any royalty for such extraction of sand and also they have no licence or permit for transporting the sand and thus in this way committed the offence as alleged. Therefore, the prosecution has prima facie case showing the complicity of the petitioners into the crime and accordingly prayed to reject the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
6. Considering the prima facie materials at this stage, the only allegations against the petitioners is that without making payment of royalty and without having licence or permission from the competent authorities they were extracting the sand and were transporting the sand in a tractor and it was intercepted by the police. 5 For the alleged offence the maximum punishment to be imposed is three years of imprisonment.
7. Furthermore the learned High Court Government Pleader has not stated any objection that the petitioners have any criminal antecedents of committing the offences of similar in nature. Therefore, considering the offences as alleged in the present case and the gravity of the alleged offence and the quantum of punishment prescribed, I am of the opinion that I, inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.91/2020 of Saidapur P.S., registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, pending on the file the Civil Judge & JMFC (Jr.Dn.), Yadgir, subject to following:-
6
CONDITIONS
1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court;
2. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the I.O. on every alternative Sundays between 6.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet;
3. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation as and when called upon;
4. The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly on all the dates of hearing, without fail and shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the case;
5. If the petitioners fail to appear before the court on two consecutive dates of hearing, then it may entail cancellation of liberty granted by this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn