Mr. Chidananda Murthy, Mr. P. Hanumantharayappa vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana

In this petition filed under Section. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been arrayed as accused Nod. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 02/2012 of Tavarekere Police Station registered for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 42 and 3(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1994, have sought for the relief of anticipatory bail. At the time of hearing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to filing of this petition, petitioner No. 3 -accused No. 3 was arrested and when produced before the learned Magistrate, he has been released on bail. Therefore, this petition in so far as it relates to 3rd petitioner, does not survive for consideration. In this effect he has also filed a memo Memo is placed on record and in the light of the said memo, this petition is considered only in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint lodged by Village Accountant of Mosarukunte Circle, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, on 04.01.2012 the aforesaid case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. According to the allegations made in the complaint, at about 05:30 p.m. on 03.01.2012 when the complainant along with Tahasildar of Sira Taluk, Revenue Inspector and other staff came near Government land bearing Survey No. 50 of Holakalu village, they saw these petitioners taking cut the slabs from the quarry found in the said land. On seeing the Revenue Officials, the petitioners ran away from the place. It is further alleged that these petitioners without obtaining any quarrying lease licence or permit, were carrying on quarrying operation in the Government land and thereby they have violated the previsions of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 and also have committed acts of theft.

3 The petition is opposed by the respondent -State.

I have heard both sides Perused the records made available,

Admittedly the petitioners 1 and 2 have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the case registered by the respondent - Police, Out of the two offences for which the case has been registered, the offence u/s 379 is non-bailable one. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners 1 and 2 that they are likely to be arrested is well founded. Reading of the complaint, no doubt prima facie indicate that petitioners, 1 and 2 had carried on quarrying operations in the Government land without valid quarrying lease, licence or permit and thereby they have violated the provisions of Rule 3 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994, which is punishable under Rule 44(2) and (3). These offences are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees. Even according to the complaint allegations; the petitioners 1 and 2 were trying to take out the atone slabs from the quarry. Thus, there was no accomplished act of theft.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Peal Code, Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are hereby directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the case in Crime No. 02/2012 of Tavarekere Police Station, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and subject to further conditions that:

i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioners for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case.

ii) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.

iv) The petitioners shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail.

The petition in so far as it relates to petitioner No. 3 is concerned, dismissed as having become infructous.