Raj Mohammed Myageri S/O. Husain Peer Myageri Vs the State of Karnataka

RAJ MOHAMMED MYAGERI S/O. HUSAIN PEER MYAGERI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. OWNER AND DRIVER OF TATA ACE VEHICLE, R/O. WARD NO.5, KILLA AREA, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583239.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH TOWN P.S. GANGAVATHI) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION, GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.184/2025 REGISTERED BY GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SECTIONS 3 AND 7 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 AND PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused before this

¶25

Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶26

Brief facts of the case:

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was working as Food Inspector, Gangavathi. She lodges a complaint stating that on 29.08.2025, at about 12.30 p.m., when she was in her office, she has received a credible information that, the PDS rice was being transported illegally in a TATA ACE vehicle near APMC Hamalara Quarters in Gangavathi. After receiving the said

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

information, she went to the spot along with two panchas. At that time, the police have intercepted the vehicle, on seeing them, the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot by leaving the vehicle. On inspection of the said vehicle, 12.25 quintal of PDS rice was found in the said vehicle. Thereafter, she has seized the said PDS rice in presence of panch witnesses. Based on the said information, the FIR came to be registered.

¶32

Heard Sri. B. D. Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Praveen Y. Devareddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Though, it is stated that, rice was seized from TATA ACE vehicle on 29.08.2025, the complaint came to be lodged on 28.08.2025. However, the respondent-police have not arrested the petitioner. In fact, the present case has been registered for the purpose of showing the statistics to the higher officials. In fact, no such incident had taken place.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the

¶37

earning member of the family. The entire family is depending on his income. The petitioner is ready to abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶38

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the TATA ACE vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted by the complainant and on verification, PDS rice was found in the said vehicle. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential to unfold the truth of the case. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the purpose of taking him for interrogation would be defeated. Therefore, his bail application has to be rejected is the contentions of the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the complainant

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶41

5 -

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

had received a credible information regarding transportation

¶44

of PDS rice in the vehicle belongs to the petitioner. Though it is alleged that, it was intercepted and PDS rice was seized from the vehicle, admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of conducting the search and seizure. The Investigating Officer has not produced any documents to show that the said rice was being transported from the petitioner godown. It is further noticed that, though, the FIR came to be registered on 31.08.2025, the respondentpolice have not made any efforts to arrest the petitioner.

¶45

Having considering the inaction of the

¶46

respondent-police, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions.

¶47

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶51

enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in

¶52

Crime No.184/2025 of respondent-police for

¶53

the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on

¶58

executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶59

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before

¶60

the jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.

¶61

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶62

(v) The petitioner shall not threaten or

¶63

tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶64

(vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶65

(vii) The petitioner shall not commit any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15906 CRL.P No. 104177 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶69

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶70

SMM/CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Raj Mohammed Myageri S/O. Husain Peer Myageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mohammed Myageri S/O. Husain Peer Myageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Janaki W/O Chandrashekar Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman S/O Doddahanamant Gujanatti Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Dilshadbegum W/O Saddam Hussain Nadaf Vs Sri Huchchsab S/O Yamanoorsab Nadaf Alias Pinjar

Shiva Alias Gopala S/O. Ramayya, Vs the State of Karnataka

Aslam S/O Khaja Hussain Vs the State of Karnataka

Babulal Sirajsab Pendari Vs State of Karnataka