Allowed

P Kumaraswamy S/O Poojar Narasappa v. the State of

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021CRL.P/100344/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail to the petitioner accused of violating the Essential Commodities Act and IPC Section 420, subject to specific conditions including execution of a bond and surrender within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-, not tampering witnesses, and surrendering wi

P Kumaraswamy S/O Poojar Narasappa Vs the State of — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100344/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P. KUMARASWAMY S/O POOJAR NARASAPPA P. AGE 39 YEARS, OCC KIRANI MERCHANT R/O NO.100, KRISHNA NAGAR SANDUR TALUK BALLARI DIST 583101

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF (THROUGH GADIGANUR P.S) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD 580001

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.06/2021 REGISTERED BY GADIGANUR POLICE STATION, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 (U/S.7, 3) KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER 2016 U/S 3, 4 12, 18 AND 19) KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODIITES (STORAGE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINING VALUE NOTIFICATION ORDER 1981) (U/S 3(2)(I), 4, 6, 8)

¶15

¶16

IPC 1860 U/S 420 PENDING BEFORE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.6/2021 registered by the Gadiganur Police Station, Ballari for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under Sections 3, 4, 12, 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016 and under Sections 3, 3(2)(i), 4, 6, 8 Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC, for brevity).

¶20

It is alleged by the complainant one Sri Raghavendra, Food Inspector, working in Tahsildar Office, Sandur, that on the credible information on 23.01.2021, he arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 who were transporting rice worth Rs.18,000/- total 12 quintals in

¶21

¶22

the Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA.35/B.9056 and seized the rice. On enquiry, it was revealed that they were carrying rice in order to sell to the petitioner. On the basis of the voluntary statement, name of this petitioner is shown as accused No.3 and since the police were making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner, he approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and nothing is recovered from him. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State objected to the bail petition and contended that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Investigation is still pending. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶25

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶27

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the police on the complaint of the Food Inspector. They have seized 40 bags of alleged PDS rice weighing total 12 quintals worth Rs.18,000/- and on the voluntary statement, the name of this petitioner was inserted by the police as accused No.3. The offence alleged though are non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are already granted bail by the learned Magistrate under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Except voluntary statement, there is noting placed on record to show that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the crime. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶28

6. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶29

The Criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.6/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and

¶30

¶31

7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under Sections 3, 4, 12, 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016 and under Sections 3, 3(2)(i), 4, 6, 8 Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer.

¶33