C. Somegowda, R.S. Ravi and R.K. Avinash vs The State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 u/s 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 alleged offence u/s 379 of IPC r/w. Sections 4 & 4(1)(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 295/2013.

The case of the prosecution in brief as per the averment in the complaint that on 07-12-2013 at about 9.00 a.m. when the complainant was in the Taluk office at K.R. Pete, he received the information that sand was dumped by bringing it from some place on Sy. No. 24 gomala of Achemuddanahalli village, K.R. Pete Taluk and the same was transported through two tippers and one J.C.B. without any valid licence. After receipt of information, the complainant along with village accountant and police reached the spot at 10.00 a.m. and found that two tippers were loaded with the sand. Immediately, after seeing the complainant and police officials, the persons who were operating the J.C.B. and tippers ran away, the J.C.B. and tippers were seized along with loaded sand under the panchanama in between 10.15 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. and thereafter, case has been registered against the petitioners.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle and other petitioners are the employees. He further made the submission that he has not undertaken any mining activities in the Government land. The allegations in the complaint that sand was brought from some other place and dumped at the spot and tippers were loaded with the sand. Hence, he made the submission that no illegal activities were carried out by the present petitioners. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioners may be granted with anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the petitioners were seen at the spot by the police and punch witnesses, who were loading and transporting the sand and engaged the J.C.B. at the spot. He made the submission that even without license or permit loading and transporting of the sand is also an offence. He made the submission that from the date of incident the present petitioners are absconding and are not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and Investigating Officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses and at this stage, petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR and other materials placed on record, so also order passed by the lower Court on the bail application. It is the contention of the prosecution that the complainant, police along with staff and panchas went to the spot and they have seen the illegal activities of loading and transporting of the sand were taking place and the sand was loaded in two tippers, J.C.B''s were also engaged at the spot. Hence, it is also the case of the prosecution that after seeing the police and other punch witnesses, the petitioner''s ran away from that place. It is also their contention that without having the licence or permit they were loading and transporting the sand from the said place. Not only that, it is also the contention of the prosecution that present petitioners were not at all available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and from the date of incident they are absconded and for that reason the prosecution is not able to proceed with the further investigation in the matter. Therefore, when such serious allegations are made that without having the licence or permit they engaged in the illegal activities of loading and transporting the sand and it is the allegation that they were absconding and not available to the Investigating Officer. When the matter is still under investigation, it is not proper stage to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused. Accordingly, petition is rejected.