Shivakallavva vs State Of Karnataka

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.128/2022 of Yelburga Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 Of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 And Section 18 of Public Distribution System Public Control Order 2016.

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.07.2022 at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant Abdul Rehiman in charge Food Inspector, Yelbruga was standing near Kanaskadasa Circle, Yelburga had received a credible information that the rice meant for PDS distribution is illegally transporting in the vehicle from Yelburga to Bandi village. The complainant went to the spot along with his staff, police and two panchas. When the complainant and his staff were searching near Tippu Circle, Yelburga, at that time at about 7.20 p.m. one Tum Tum vehicle came from Yelburga bus stand. On seeing the complainant and police, the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the spot by leaving the vehicle. The complainant on search of the said vehicle, found 16 bags of rice total weighing 8 quintals and on examination of the said rice they found them meant for PDS rice. The complainant seized the said PDS rice bags and the vehicle under Mahazar and lodged the complaint. The said came to be registered in Crime No.128/2022 of Yelburga Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner apprehending her arrest has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous No.763/2022 seeking anticipatory bail along with accused No.1 and the same came to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, so far as this petitioner is concerned by order dated 18.08.2022 and allowed so far as accused No.1 is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the name of this petitioner/accused No.2 is not mentioned in the complaint and FIR. The petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of seizure of PDS rice. Accused No.1 who is the driver of the vehicle has been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner is a lady aged 65 years and she is not having any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Police in investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in which the PDS rice is transported which is meant to supply to the poor and needy people. In the vehicle, the complainant found 16 bags of PDS rice weighing 8 quintals worth Rs.18,400/-. The investigation is still in progress. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation, tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint, Mahazar and the order passed by the Sessions Court.

Accused No.1 is the driver and accused No.2 is the owner of the Tum Tum vehicle bearing registration No.KA-37/A-639. It is alleged that in the said vehicle PDS rice containing 16 bags weighing 8 quintals is seized. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. There is no allegation that the petitioner was present on the spot at the time of incident. The petitioner is a woman aged 65 years. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner/accused No.2 has undertaken to co-operate with the Police in investigation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The driver (accused No.1) is already granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses can be met with by imposing some stringent conditions.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.128/2022 of Yelburga Police Station subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within three weeks from today and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer and make herself available for interrogation whenever required.

iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

v) The petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet be collected by the Police.