The Karnataka High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused in illegal quarrying and explosive substance offences near a dam, was denied bail due to the gravity of charges and lack of entitlement to parity with other accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4177 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
Sri. Haisha @ Rudresha B.E., S/o Erappa, aged about 39 years, residing at Baby Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District.
…Petitioner
(By Kum. Raksha Keerthana K, for Sri. Kemparaju, Advocate)
AND :
State of Karnataka, By Pandavapura Police Station, Mandya District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, Advocate)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.210/2021 of Pandavapura Police Station, Mandya for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 9B of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act and Sections 286, 511 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.210/2021 of Pandavapura Police Station pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 9B of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 and Sections 286, 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Smt. Padmaja M.V.
3
2. Heard Smt. Raksha Keerthana K, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is apprehension of he being arrested by the police, therefore he is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question. Initially, FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 & 2 and they are already enlarged on bail. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the
4
petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
5
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for
the following:
R E A S O N S
seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of quarry, who is undertaking blasting of stones without valid license or permit. The scene of occurrence is stated to be within 12 kms from K.R.Sagara dam. Admittedly, the Government has prohibited mining activities within the radius of 25 kms from the K.R.Sagara dam. Even
6
though accused Nos.1 & 2 are enlarged on bail, they are granted bail after they are subjected to interrogation. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek benefit of parity. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
AG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
Whether the petitioner can claim parity with other accused enlarged on bail?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Haisha @ Rudresha B.E.
State of Karnataka
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
