Allowed

M Harsha v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021CRL.P/960/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granting anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner for offenses related to illegal stone mining. The court imposed conditions including bond furnishing and appearance before the investigating officer within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, directed to appear before IO within 15 days, furnish bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, and adhere to conditions not to commi

M Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.960 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M.HARSHA, S/O M.K.MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SOMEGOWDRA BEEDI, MADDUR TOWN AND TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, MANDYA - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 01. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN PCR.NO.471/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4(1), 4(1-A) 23(A) OF MMDR ACT AND ALSO

¶11

¶12

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER RULES 3(1), 32, 42(1), 44 OF KMMCR.

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in PCR No.471/2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A) 23(A) of MMDR Act and also offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 32, 42(1), 44 of KMMCR, on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.D.Nagesha.

¶16

Heard Sri.S.B.Halli, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is alleged that petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.719/1, wherein, stone mining was said to have

¶18

3 -

¶19

been undertaken by using three compressor tractors. But, petitioner is not the owner of the said land. In fact, accused No.1 is the owner of the said land. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the owners of the tractor and the compressor. Accused No.5 had hired the said compressor tractor. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are already granted bail. Petitioner is not having criminal antecedent. He is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he 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 in the interest of justice.

¶20

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Record of rights in respect of the land in question disclose the name of the present petitioner as one of the owners. Serious allegations are made against the petitioner and other accused for having committed the offences. The compressor tractors were seized along with

¶21

¶22

stones from the spot. Thereafter, private complaint came to be lodged in accordance with law. There is no inordinate delay in filing the private complaint. Petitioner is absconding since the date of registration of the case. Considering the seriousness of the offences, petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶23

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

¶24

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

The materials placed on record prima facie disclose that, serious allegations are made against petitioner

¶29

¶30

for having committed the offences. Geologist along with staff and panchas went to the spot and found that stone mining was undertaken in the land belonging to accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is not the owner of the land in question, it is stated that record of rights disclose his name as one of the owners. Considering the materials placed before Court, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case cannot be accepted, at this stage. However, it is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation or that he is having criminal antecedent. Under such circumstances, 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.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed.

¶35

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in PCR No.471/2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur.

¶36

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:-

¶37

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;

¶38

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

pgg

M Harsha v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Harsha v. the 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

Anjana Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Malang Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Raiju @ Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sandeep Vs State by