Allowed

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2012CRL.P/2626/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court at Hassan, Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioners, owners and drivers of lorries involved in illegal sand transportation from the Vedavathi river bank, were directed to execute a personal bond and provide surety.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned upon execution of personal bond for Rs. 50,000 each with one surety of like-sum and compliance with police conditions.

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE H IC H COIJ RT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALO^RE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE H.ON’BLE MR JUSTICE i.C N. .KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No2626 OF 2012

¶6

BE’IWEEN:

¶7

B.MANJL. 5,10 BHASJ’AR NAIDU. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING No.APO2/U9340, RESIDING AT No.104, 2ND CROSS,^3RD MAIN ROAD, J.C.NAGAR, MICOLAYOUT, BANGALORE, 2. CHIKKA MUDDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NoKA-0I AB0979, R/AT MINDRINAHALLY VILLAGE. BHANGENAHALLY POST, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 5/0 VENKATARAYAPPA.

¶8

PETITIONERS

¶9

I B’t SRI M P \ I SI IWANATH & SPLK^MAIVJTTNATH ADVOCATESI

¶10

TEJE STATE C)F KARNATAKA, [A 1 IALLAKURI r (JLIC E SI \ i ) CHITRAD. UTRGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SHO

¶11

(BY SRI. G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY. HCGP)

¶12

TIllS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILET) UNDER SECTION 3 38 (R P ( BY THE \1)\ OC -\ I F FOR THE PETI H ON ERS PRA\ING 10 ENLARGE TNT PEIHIONERS ON B\1I IN [‘HE E\ E\ I UF THEIR ARRFS1 iN CRIML No ii 1 / 20i2 OF ( HLLAKbRE POLICE S1AFIOI\ CHIIRAD1. RCA DISTRICI FOR THE OFFENCES PLNISIIABLE UNDER SEC lIONS 21(1)⁴ 4 (A) OF MINES AND ‘ITNERALS REGLLAHONS AND DEVELOPMENT ACT. 1957 AND UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this petition Illeci under Section 438 of Cr.RC, the petitioners have sought for the relief of anticipatory bail apprehendin their arrest by Challakere Police in connection with Crime No. 111 /2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1). 4/4(A), Mines and Minerals Regulations and Development Act, 1957 r/w 379 of IPC.

¶16

.Accordlng to t.he. c..se. of the prosecution, at abou.t 31J0 a,m, on 02.04,20 12. tHe Superntendem of Police. Chitrlurea District, informed the P.5.1., Chaflakere Police Station, about his receiving credible inthrmauon regardinc

¶17

¶18

illegal transportation of sand from the bank of Vedavathi river near Nellurhally Village, Challakre Taluk and directed the PSJ to immediately rush to the spot and seize the lorries and accordingly, when the PSI and his staff went to that place at about 2.30 a.m., they noticed ei’ht lorries at that place and the sand being loaded into the lorries; the policeparty caught hold of two persons arrayed as accused Nos, 1 & 2 and others escaped. On interrogation of accused Nos, 1 & 2, they disclosed identity of the persons who ran away from the place as the owners and drivers of the lorries, Eight lorries found at the place were seized. On the basis of the report of the Junior Engineer, PWD. the aforesaid ease came to be registered and investigation was pet.itloners are. oers arid drivers of the lorries seized. takenup. During the investigation it was revealed that, the

¶19

C)n coInjug to know of the registration of ihe case against the owyiers and drivers of the Lornes. the petitioners approach.ed t he learned Sess.ion Judge, Chitradurga., for gtant of anticipatory^r bail and the said petition came to be /

¶20

¶21

¶22

petition seeldng relief of anticipatory bail. rejected. Therefore, the petitioners have presented this

¶23

that they are likely to be arrested is well founded. are persons on the basis that they are the owners and drivers accused petitioners appears to have been arrayed as accused the petitioners committing non-bailable offence punishable under Section These 379 of IPC, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners of of the lorries found at the bank ofVedavathi river. 4. AdmIttedly,

¶24

the case, the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. It is also noticed that some of the accused persons have afready been granted bail by this Court. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶25

In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. them executing personal bond for a sum of I50.000/Challakere Police Station, Chitradurga District, on each of The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners on ball in the event of their arrest in Crime No.111/2012 of 6.

¶26

the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety like-sum to

¶27

further conditions that:

¶28

(i) as and when so required by him and shall co operate in the investigation of the case: shall appear before the Investigating Officer Upon such arrest and release, the petitioners

¶29

they shall not tamper or terrorize the prOSec1tiOfl witnesses in any manner:

¶30

(ii)

¶31

the one alleged against them.

¶32

(iii) they shall not indulge in any acts similar to

¶33

KGR*

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Thirthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangadhara Vs State of Karnataka

Umesh Vs State by K R Traffic Police

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

Vinod S/O Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by Bannerghatta Police Station