Veerabhadraiah K.M. vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable u/s 379 of IPC, under Sections 3, 42, 43, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule, 1994, and under Sections 4(1A), 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 21(5) of MMDR (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 100/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioner was not at all working in the said stone quarry and not extracting the stones, but somebody might have taken the undue advantage of the absence of petitioner and may be extracting the stone from the said quarry. He has submitted that other three accused persons approached this Court requesting for grant of anticipatory bail and this Court by its order dated 15.05.2014 passed in Crl. P. 2296/2014, allowed the said petition. Hence, submitted that on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments submitted that prosecution materials prima-facie show that petitioner along with other accused persons involved in extracting the stone quarry in the land bearing Sy. No. 114 of Halugondanahalli Village. He has submitted that petitioner and other accused persons without having any valid licence or permit involved in extracting stones from the quarry and thereby they have committed the alleged offences. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record so also the order passed by this Court in respect of other three accused persons.

Looking to the averments made in the compliant, they are one and the same against all the accused persons, that without having any valid licence or permit, illegally, they are extracting the stones. When, under the similar set of circumstances, this Court has already granted bail to other three accused persons, on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner has undertaken in the petition that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

Hence, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections Section 379 of IPC, under Sections 3, 42, 43, 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule, 1994, and under Sections 4(1A), 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 21(5) of MMDR (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 100/2014, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

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

iii Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.

iv. The petitioner has 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.