Ashoka C & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the

respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Karnataka Minor

Mineral Concession Rules 1994, Sections 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act and under Section 379 of

IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.86/2016.

Initially, FIR was registered against six unknown persons. But during the course of investigation, the present petitioners have been arrayed as

accused Nos.8, 9 and 10.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that they are the owners of the vehicles. They are not involved

in committing the alleged offences and there is a false implication of these petitioners.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that looking to the contents of the complaint as well as

other materials produced by the prosecution it is seen that even the petitioners herein are also involved in the illegal transportation of sand. Hence,

he has submitted that petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Perusing the materials on record and also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are having permission for the

transportation of the sand. But as per the allegation of the prosecution the quantity of the sand being transported is in excess of the permission

granted. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the exact excess quantity that is being transported is not mentioned and

only bald allegations are made against the petitioners. The petitioners have contended in the petition that they are innocent and not committed the

alleged offences and they have undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court and are also ready to co-operate

with the investigation agency. The offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994, Sections 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and

Minerals Regulation and Development Act and under Section 379 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.86/2016, subject to

the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety

bond.