High CourtsSingle Bench

SRI. SUNIL H B & ORS. vs STATE BY YESLUR POLICE

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 11 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 KAR CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Budihal R.B.
CASE NUMBER
9852 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 439 words
1.

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the

respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest for the offences punishable under Section 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Rule 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules., 1994, and Section 379 of

I.P.C., registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.168/2017.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that a suo-motu report came to be registered against the petitioners on a credible information that there is illegal

transportation of sand by the petitioners in a lorry and also a J.C.B. was used for the said process. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came

to be registered for the alleged offence.

3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, the F.I.R. complaint and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail

application of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2, during the course of arguments made a submission that

the petitioners are the owners of the JCB vehicle and they had given it on hire basis to the other accused and were unaware that the said JCB will

be used for such illegal purpose. The petitioners have denied the allegations made in the complaint contending that the petitioners are falsely

implicated in the case. The petitioners also contended that they are innocent and also undertakes to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this

Court.

5.

The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to release the

petitionersaccused Nos. 1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 168/2017 registered for the above said offences,

subject to the following conditions:

i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond.