Allowed

Mr P Mohan v. the State Rep by SHO

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2024CRL.P/6338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. rejecting coercion claims against the petitioner, who had previously been bailed in the same facts. The court directed regular bail subject to conditions regarding appearance, bonding, and witness conduct.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail in C.C.No.9/2019 subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Mr P Mohan Vs the State Rep by SHO — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6338 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. P. MOHAN S/O MR. PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.55, PILLIYAR KOVIL TREET, ARUMPATTI POST, NAMAKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-637 001

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE REP. BY SHO, T. NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 001, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN C.C.NO.9/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., T.NARASIPURA TALUK, T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT FILED BY THE

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶17

RESPONDENT, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 42 AND 44 OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES AND SEC. 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in C.C.No.9/2019 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, for the offences punishable under Rule 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules and Sections 4(1), 4 (1A) and 21 (1) of the MMDR Act, 1957.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶24

prior to filing of private Complaint in C.C.No.9/2019, the

¶25

FIR in Crime No.241/2016 was registered against the petitioner on the same facts and in the said case, the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶27

petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4144/2017 on 07.11.2017. Subsequently, private complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Trial Court and after taking cognizance against the petitioner, summons was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was never served with summons at any stage. Inspite of the same, NBW was issued against the petitioner and thereafter, proclamation order was also issued. Therefore, prays to allow the petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the bail application and submits that inspite of repeated summons to the petitioner before the trial Court, the presence of the petitioner could not be secured. Therefore, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner. Hence prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

On perusal of the material available on record, it is

¶30

seen that prior to filing of Private Complaint in C.C.No.9/2019, FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.241/2016 by the T.Narasipura, Police Station,

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶32

on the basis of first information received from

¶33

Smt.Rashmi, Senior Geologist, Mysuru. The same is also mentioned in the private complaint filled subsequently in the year 2019. After filling of the private complaint, the case was registered against the petitioner before the trial Court in C.C.No.9/2019 and summons was issued to the petitioner. However, the order sheet of the trial Court would show that though summons was not served on the petitioner, the trial Court had proceeded to issue NBW against the petitioner and even though the NBW issued to the petitioner was not executed, thereafter, the trial Court has issued proclamation order against the petitioner and without even declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender order was passed to attach his property. The records would go to show that petitioner was not served before the trial Court at any stage and coercive steps have been taken against him including issuance of NBW and proclamation order. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for period of 5 years.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶35

It is not in dispute that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the very case i.e., Crime No.241/2016 in Crl.P.No.4144/2017 disposed on 07.11.2017. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that, petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed . The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.9/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, for the offences punishable under Rule 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules and Sections 4(1), 4 (1A) and 21 (1) of the MMDR Act 1957, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

a) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within fifteen days from today and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:29752 CRL.P No. 6338 of 2024

¶40

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the trial Court and Execution Court unless the trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶41

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶42

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶45

ASN

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Mr P Mohan v. the State Rep by SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P Mohan v. the State Rep by SHO

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

Sri. Kassan Kumara Sanka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Likith Vs State of Karnataka

Badal Bahera Vs State by Bangarapet Railway Police

Puneethkumar C S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka by

Bhemalinga Vs State by Whitefield Police Station