Allowed

N K Kubendra Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2021CRL.P/100418/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioner's criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a corruption case involving illegal sand mining. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail upon arrest, directed to appear to be enlarged on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000.

N K Kubendra Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100418/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N.K.KUBENDRA NAIK, AGE-MAJOR, OCC-REVENUE INSPECTOR, TELAGI HOBLI, HARPANAHALLI TALUK, DIST-BALLARI, NOW WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT IN ANAGODU TALUK, DIST-DAVANAGERE-577 556.

¶8

….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ACB POLICE STATION BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580 001.

¶12

…..RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION (BALLARI) CRIME NO.5/2020, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(C) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTIONS 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 OF THE IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.5/2020 of ACB Police Station, Ballari registered on 27.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant – Sri.Kotresh.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.10.2017, the informant-Sri.Kotresh lodged the first information with ACB, Davanagere alleging that there was illegal sand mining in Harapanahalli Taluk Halavaralu Block No.9 and Tavaragondi Block No.7 of Davanagere district without getting permit and that the officials and the Contractors are involved in such illegal mining and requested ACB police to investigate into the matter. After receipt of the information by the informant, ACB Ballari sought permission to investigate into the matter against the present petitioner, he being the Government servant working as Revenue Inspector. The Deputy

¶20

¶21

Commissioner of Davanagere accorded permission to register the case against the present petitioner and to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.5/2020 came to be registered on 27.05.2020 against the present petitioner as accused No.1 and other officers and contractors and the police took up investigation.

¶22

Heard Sri K.L.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent-ACB. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the first information was lodged by the informant-Sri Kotresh on 07.10.2017. The present petitioner was never named in the said information. There is general allegation made against the officials and the contractors in the village, alleging illegal sand mining in the specified areas. No specific overt act is alleged against the present petitioner. The petitioner was working in Harapanahalli Taluka, the part of then Davanagere district, which is now in Ballari district, from 19.09.2015 to 24.05.2018. Thereafter, he was transferred to Jagaluru of Davanagere district, where he is still on duty.

¶24

¶25

There are absolutely no allegations against the present petitioner, while he was working as Revenue Inspector in Harapanahalli Taluka. On the basis of bald allegations made by the informant, which is not supported by any material, the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere accorded permission to register the case and to investigate into the matter. However, till today the present petitioner is working as Revenue Inspector and he never absconded. Since there is apprehension of he being arrested in light of the registration of FIR on 27.05.2020, on the basis of permission accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere district, the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition subject to reasonable conditions.

¶26

Per contra, learned Counsel representing the

¶27

respondent-ACB submitted that as per the permission accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere, the FIR was registered and the investigation is undertaken. If the petitioner co-operates with the Investigating Officer in the

¶28

¶29

investigation, he may be granted anticipatory bail, subject to reasonable conditions. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after registration of the FIR, the investigation is undertaken and it is still in progress.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent-ACB produced the report of Investigating Officer along with the documents to show that the investigation is undertaken. Copies of the diary are also produced to substantiate the contention that the investigation is undertaken in a right direction. However, it is fairly submitted that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and he may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶33

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following :

¶34

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The materials placed before the Court disclose that initially the informant-Sri Kotresh lodged the first information on 07.10.2017 alleging illegal sand mining in Harapanahalli Taluk Halavaralu Block No.9 and Tavaragondi Block No.7 of Davanagere district against unknown officials and contractors. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Davanagere accorded permission for investigation into the matter against the present petitioner. Accordingly, FIR was registered against the present petitioner as accused No.1 and other officials and contractors. On verification of the objections statement filed by the respondent-ACB, it is found that the investigation is in progress. Admittedly, the present petitioner is a Government servant, still he is serving as Revenue Inspector in the Taluka Office at Jagaluru. Therefore, there is no chance of he absconding and fleeing away. However, imposition of reasonable conditions, while allowing the petition would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, I answer the above point in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following :

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

¶40

The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.5/2020 of Anti Corrupution Bureau Police Station (Ballari).

¶41

The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

a. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall furnish personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶43

b. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not commit similar offences;

¶44

c. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; and

¶45

d. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

ckk

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

N K Kubendra Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N K Kubendra Naik 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

Mallikarjuna Hugar S/O. Ayyappa Hugar, Vs Manohar S/O. Hanumanthappa Iliger

Basalingappa S/O. Kumarappa Dyamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagendra S/O Mallappa Kabbur Vs Manjunatha Enterprises

Manjappa S/O Ganganagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Narayan S/O Nagendrappa Kalal

Parasappa S/O Hanamanth Ramaswami Vs State of Karnataka