Allowed

Shivsharnappa v. the State

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2017CRL.P/201164/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. relating to alleged illegal transport of sand. The petitioner was granted bail subject to a bond and conditions not to tamper with witnesses or leave the state jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum.

Shivsharnappa Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201164/2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Shivsharnappa s/o Malkajappa Dubari, Age : 32 Years, Occ : Business, R/o Shirwal, Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Kalaburagi –585101. ... Petitioner (By Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State through Afzalpur P.S. Through S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi-585101.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.1/2016 of Afzalpur Police Station Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act pending before C.J. (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Afzalpur Gulbarga.

¶16

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2016 of Afzalpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act.

¶20

¶21

That on 03.01.2016 at 3 a.m.

¶22

complainant-PSI DCB Cell Kalaburagi received credible information regarding illegal transportation of sand at Desai Kallur village. On receipt of the said information the complainant secured the presence of two panchas, one revenue inspector and proceeded to Desai Kallur village along with PSI of Afzalpur and reached near Desai Kallur village at 5- 30 a.m., parked the jeep at some distance from the Bheema river and observed that some persons were engaged in loading the sand in the tippers with the help of JCB machines. Then they raided and apprehended five persons who were engaged in stealing the sand for illegal transport. On enquiry those persons revealed that they had no licence or permit to transport the sand.

¶23

¶24

It is stated that 150 tipper load of sand

¶25

worth Rs.7,50,000/- was stored near Mallikarjun temple situated on the bank of Bheema river.

¶26

The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the cost of total quantity of sand found in the land is mentioned.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigation is completed and the I.O. has submitted the final report. The petitioner has not involved in similar or other kind of cases.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is absconding since the date of registration of the case and the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Prl. Sessions Judge,

¶29

¶30

Kalaburagi came to be rejected. In the context of the circumstances of the case, no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing stringent conditions.

¶31

Hence, the following :

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.1/2016 of Afzalpur Police Station Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act, he shall be released on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to

¶34

¶35

the satisfaction of the I.O. subject to following

¶36

conditions:

¶37

The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize the persecution witnesses in any manner.

¶38

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Karnataka State without prior permission of the concerned Court.

¶39

If the petitioner violates any of the conditions,

¶40

the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation

of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RSP

Shivsharnappa v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivsharnappa v. the State

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

Smt.Jamakka @ Veera W/O Shantappa Rathod Vs Sri.Shantappa S/O Thanu Rathod

Muttanna @ Shivanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Pratap Vithal Bhosale and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka

Vijayasarathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Idris Jagirdar Vs the State

Sanjay Kulkarni and Anr. Vs the of Karnataka