Allowed

Muniraju v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.P/4902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail regarding sand transport violations under the Mines and Minerals Act, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to surrender within 15 days subject to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, directed to appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days.

Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4902 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNIRAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/OF DODAKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER

¶16

¶17

ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN C.C.NO.1065/2021 OF CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE OF PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 22 MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND UNDER SECTION 44 OF KARNATAKA MINES AND MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1994, DIRECT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER OFFICER, WHO IS INVESTIGATING IN THIS MATTER TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused is before this Court

¶21

seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1065/2021 of Chintamani Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Section 44 of Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1994, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant PSI of Chintamani Police Station.

¶22

¶23

Heard Sri. Manjunath B.R, learned Counsel

¶24

for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶26

submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He has not committed any offence as alleged. The date of incident as stated by the complainant is on 11.04.2021. The private complaint came to be filed on 05.05.2021. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The tractor and trailer with sand is already seized at the spot. The spot mahazar discloses that

¶27

the presence of the petitioner at the spot and his signature is found in the mahazar. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had fled from the scene. The petitioner is not

¶28

¶29

required for any purpose, except, to ensure his presence before the trial Court. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the 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.

¶30

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He is driver/owner of the tractor in question. The tractor and the sand is already seized by the Police. The investigation is still at the initial stage. The petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may

¶31

¶32

commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

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

¶34

“Whether the petitioner is

¶35

entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶36

My answer to the above point is in the

¶37

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶38

R E A S O N S

¶39

The materials placed before the Court

¶40

prima facie discloses the case against the present petitioner. Specific allegations are made against the petitioner for having extracted and transported the

¶41

¶42

sand without any licence or permit. Admittedly, the tractor and the sand are already seized. The spot mahazar discloses the signature of the present petitioner which prima facie discloses that the petitioner was available at the spot along with the Investigating Officer. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to hold that petitioner is required for interrogation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed .

¶47

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail

¶48

in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.1065/2021 of Chintamani Rural Police Station.

¶49

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶50

a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶51

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶52

¶53

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶54

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Muniraju v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniraju v. State of Karnataka by

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

Apeksha Ashok Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh K Vs State of Karnataka

Miss. Ramla Shedfa Nancy Vs State by Narcotics Control Bureau

Sri.Sanjay Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha B v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rohan Khazi Bist Vs State by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police