Allowed

Sri. Banappa Siddappa Vader, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2020CRL.P/102529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by accused in a case involving alleged illegal transportation of sand under the MMDR Act. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the charge sheet was already filed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer or Court within fifteen days for filing regular bail petition.

Sri. Banappa Siddappa Vader, Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102529 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI BANAPPA SIDDAPPA VADER, AGE : 28 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL., R/O. FULGADDI, TQ : MUDALAGI, DIST : BELAGAVI.

¶7

SRI SIDDAPPA BANAPPA VADER, AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL., R/O. FULGADDI, TQ : MUDALAGI, DIST : BELAGAVI.

¶8

……PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI VITTAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI MUDALAGI, POLICE STATION, MUDALAGI, TAL :GOKAK, DIST : BELAGAVI.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT AN ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN EVENT ARREST OF THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 BY POLICE IN C.C.NO.415 OF 2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC COURT,

¶15

¶16

MUDALAGI FOR OFFENCE SECTION 379 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, MAY KINDLY BE RELEASED ON BAIL.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR’ Act, for short) and Section 44(1) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules (‘KMMC’ Rules, for short) registered in C.C.No.415/2019.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶21

The learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition orally.

¶22

¶23

The FIR was registered based on the

¶24

complaint filed by the Police Sub-Inspector, Mudalagi Police Station. The complaint averments are that on 05.04.2018 night at about 10.00 p.m. the complainant on receiving the credible information about illegal transportation of sand went to the spot along with his staff. One Tractor bearing registration No.KA22/G-451 was found near Pulagaddi Cross, which was carrying the sand. The said Tractor had no number plate. On enquiry, the said persons did not give satisfactory reply whether they had permit or licence to carry the sand and have not produced records. Therefore, both Tractor and Trailer were seized at the spot and registered the case. The police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 had approached the Sessions Court for seeking anticipatory bail, but the same has been rejected.

¶25

¶26

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not involved in the offences alleged against them. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The bail petition was rejected by the Sessions Court on the reason that the police have not arrested the petitioners on the spot and when the lower Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioners, their apprehension of arrest is not well founded. After rejection of the bail petition, the police officials are making attempts to arrest them. Due to pandemic Covid-19 situation, the petitioners are not arrested. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court for granting anticipatory bail.

¶27

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that there is ample evidence to show that the petitioners

¶28

¶29

were involved in illegal transportation of sand. The petitioners having committed the offence, are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶30

As could be seen from the prosecution papers available at this stage, main allegations against these petitioners are that they are involved in illegal transportation of sand which are punishable with the provisions of MMDR Act. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a period up to five years and fine which may extend to rupees five lakh. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion about the prosecution records and the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶31

The grounds stated in the bail petition and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners goes to prove the apprehension of the

¶32

¶33

petitioners regarding their arrest and detention. Since the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, their custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of the case

¶35

and the grounds urged, the bail petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The criminal petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station or Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order on any working day and on their appearance, the bail petition to be filed by them shall be considered at the earliest on merits.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

CLK

Sri. Banappa Siddappa Vader, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Banappa Siddappa Vader, 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

State of Karnataka Vs Mr.Ravichandra Manjunath Haller

Shri.Praveenkumar S/O Mallikarjun Gokak Vs the State of Karnataka

Ismail Nisarkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakkappa S/O Siddappa Thigadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajay S/O Hanumant Kallavaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Govind S/O Shivaputrappa Sangolli Vs the State of Karnataka