Sri. Lakshmeesh and Sri. Chandan L. vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 506, 379, 114 of IPC read with Sections 4(1A), 21 of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 35/2014. Brief facts of the case as per the averments in the complaint are that on 3.2.2014 written complaint was lodged alleging that when the complainant, Lokesh and Sudhir while discharging their duties, they found a lorry bearing Regn. No. KA-02-AC-1369 transporting sand illegally without obtaining any permission or license from the concerned authorities. Hence, the complainant advised Lokesh to take the said lorry to the Alur Police Station. Thereafter, the complainant and one Mahesh followed the lorry in a motor bike, while going to the Police Station. It is further alleged that the Driver of the Car bearing Regn. No. KA-13-M-8714 came and parked in front of the motor bike in which the complainant was travelling and made the complainant to stop the motor bike. Thereafter, the lorry was driven in a high speed and the lorry was made to stop near Kalli Koppalu Gate and when Lokesh questioned the same, the driver of the lorry assaulted him with hands and pushed him from the lorry and threatened him by showing an iron rod. Thereafter, drew the lorry in a high speed. It is alleged that the driver of the lorry and driver of the car obstructed the complainant and other officials from discharging their duty and thereby, they have committed an offence as mentioned above. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered by the respondent police.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioners were not at all involved in the loading and transporting of sand in the lorry. Since petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the lorry, he has been implicated in the case. The learned Counsel further made submission that the petitioners were totally unconnected with the alleged incident and there is no-material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that even the statement of witnesses collected by the investigating officer during investigation goes to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. He submitted that the petitioners were giving instruction to the driver to take the lorry in high speed and were ready to see the consequence. He made submission that the matter is still under investigation and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the case about illegal transportation of the sand without there being licence or permit and also looking to the character of the petitioners in disturbing the complainant and other officials from discharging their duties and assaulting the complainant and also posing life threat to the complainant and other officials, at this stage, they go to show that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.

The petition is accordingly rejected.