AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since these two criminal petitions are in respect of
the same crime number, they are taken together and
disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid
repetition of discussion of law and facts.
Criminal Petition No 9080 of 2017 is filed by the
accused No 1, said to be the driver of the vehicle involved
in the crime, under Section 439 CrPC and Criminal
Petition No 9152 of 2017 is filed by the accused No 2, said
to be the owner of the vehicle involved in the crime, under
Section 438 CrPC, seeking regular and anticipatory bail,
respectively, in Crime No 72 of 2017, registered by the
respondent-police for the offences punishable under
Sections 379 IPC and Sections 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957, and Rule 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1994.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondent. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in
the case.
Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per the
complaint averments, are that: On 26-10-2017 at about
5.15 am, the complainant was on patrolling duty. By that
time, he saw a tractor coming from Vadrevu road. The
complainant stopped the tractor and enquired the driver
and found sand in the trailer attached to the said tractor.
The transportation of sand was without licence and the
driver told that one Srinivasalu is the owner of the vehicle,
who is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No 9152 of 2017.
The driver was taken into custody and the tractor, trailer
along with sand were seized under mahazar. On the basis
of said complaint, a case has been registered against the
petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences.
The allegation in the complaint is that the driver of
the vehicle in question was transporting sand without valid
licence. But, he denied the allegation of his involvement
in the alleged offence. It is also mentioned in the
complaint that on enquiry, the driver of the vehicle
informed that the accused No 1, the petitioner in Criminal
Petition No 9152 of 2017, is the owner of the said vehicle.
Therefore, he has also been arraigned as an accused in the
case. The accused No 2 also denied the allegations.
In so far as the allegations against the second
accused are concerned, who is said to be the owner of the
said tractor-trailer, whether he has given the vehicle fully
knowing that it will be used for any illegal purpose or not
is a matter to be ascertained during the course of trial.
Both petitioners have contended that they have not
committed the alleged offences and that they are ready to
abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed
by the court. The alleged offences are triable by a
Magistrate Court. The offences alleged against the
petitioners herein are not exclusively punishable either
with imprisonment for life or death.
Accordingly, both Criminal Petitions are allowed. The
petitioners-accused 1 and 2 are entitled to regular and
anticipatory bail respectively for the alleged offences,
subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand only] each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner in Crime No 9080 of 2017 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
iv. Petitioner in Crime No 9152 of 2017 has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with further investigation.
v. The petitioner in Crime No 9152 of 2017 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.