Partly allowed

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020CRL.P/101312/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted separate anticipatory bail to two petitioners in a criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC. Anticipatory bail was rejected for the first petitioner but allowed for the second with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly allowed; bail rejected for Petitioner No. 1; Petitioner No. 2 granted bail with conditions to appear in 10 days, maintain distance from witnesses, report to police every 15 days, and o

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101312 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VIJAYKUMAR S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA MATTI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NALWAD ONI, GADAG, TQ/DIST: GADAG. 2. SHRIDHAR S/O IRANNA VAJJARBANDI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: RANGANAWADA ONI, GADAG, TQ/DIST: GADAG. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA. ADV) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶8

¶9

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN GADAG TOWN POLICE IN CRIME NO.57/2020 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.7, 3 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AND SEC.420 OF IPC 1860.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The learned HCGP takes notice for respondent-

¶13

State.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶15

and the learned HCGP for respondent -State.

¶16

This petition is filed seeking to enlarge the

¶17

petitioners on anticipatory bail in Crime No.57/2020 of Gadag Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 of IPC.

¶18

¶19

In the complaint lodged by Manjula Aklad

¶20

working as a Food Inspector, it is stated that on receiving a credible information, she along with the police went to the spot at Ramdas Mill situated near Kolikere Cross in Gadag on 27.08.2020 at about 3.30 a.m and noticed five vehicles engaged in loading and unloading the rice bags meant for public distribution under Annabhagya Scheme. A total number of 478 bags of rice weighing 251 quintal 40 kgs, approximately valued at Rs.5,53,080/- were in the said vehicles and they were seized. It is alleged that the persons involved were trying to sell the rice bags in black marketing and hence committed offences under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955 and Section 420 of IPC.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶22

contends that the petitioners are innocent. Their names are not found in the First Information Report.

¶23

¶24

There is no document to show that the seized rice was meant for public distribution under the scheme. He submits that the seized bags belongs to petitioners which was purchased under a Cash Receipt dated 17.08.2020 from Raichur. The petitioners are lawabiding citizens and in the event of their arrest, their image will be tarnished. He submits that a false complaint has been lodged at the behest of persons who are inimical against the petitioners. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶25

The learned HCGP has vehemently opposed

¶26

the petition and sought to reject the prayer made by the petitioners.

¶27

It is not in dispute that 478 rice bags containing 251 quintal 40 kgs of rice, approximately valued at Rs.5,53,080/- were seized. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a

¶28

¶29

licenced rice trader and doing business in Sai Baba Traders in APMC, Gadag and the rice was purchased from M/s. Sri Veerabhadreshwara Rice Mill, Raichur and kept in the godown at Kolikeri Zin at Ramdas Mill, Gadag. From the averments made, it can be seen that the petitioner No.1 is having a godown at Ramdas Mill compound and huge quantity of rice bags were seized which are being loaded into five vehicles in the wee hours. The seized rice bags did not contain any kind of brand name. Against petitioner No.1 one more case in Crime No. 22/2020 has been registered in BEPS for committing similar offences. Considering the facts and circumstances, petitioner No.1 is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

a) Petition is partly allowed.

¶32

¶33

b) Petition in respect of petitioner No.1 is rejected.

¶34

c) Petition in respect of petitioner No.2 is allowed.

¶35

d) In the event of arrest of the petitioner No.2 in Crime No.57/2020 of Gadag Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 of IPC, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) The petitioner No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from today and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶37

ii) The petitioner No.2 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶38

¶39

iii) The petitioner No.2 shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in 15 days till completion of the investigation.

¶40

iv) The petitioner No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission.

¶41

v) The petitioner No.2 shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings.

¶42

lad

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti v. 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

Siddalingesh S/O Chansangappa Kudleppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Anjinappa S/O Durugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna @ Katraju S/O Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka