Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/9644/2016 of MAHESHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY on 29 December 2016
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9644 OF 2016 Between: Mahesha, S/o Veerabhadraiah, Aged about 30 years, R/at Dasanapura Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District- 571
- |] -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29[TH]DAY OF DECKEMBER JOLO
BEFORE|
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINALPETITIONNO9644OF|2016
Between
Mahesna,S/o Veerabnadraian,Aged about 30 years,R/at Dasanapura Village, .Kollegal Taluk, .Cnamarajanagar District- 5/1 111.
. PETITIONER |
(By Sri. Veerabhadraswamy H.P.,Advocate)
And
The State of Karnataka,By Kollegal Town Police StationChamarajanagara & District|By its SPP High Court of Karnataka,Bangalore-560 OO01.
. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nagesnwarappa, HCGP)|
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 ofCr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the!event of his arrest in Cr.No.183/2015 (CC No.218/2016)of Kollegala Town P.S. Chamarajanagara for the offences|punishable under Sections 21(4) and 21(4A), of MMDR|
-2D-]
Act, 1957 and under Sections 42(1), 43(2), 31R of KMMCR|Rules and under Section 379 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heardtne|learned|counsel.for|thepetitioner/Accused No.4 and learned GovernmentPieader for respondent.
Page 1 of 3
2. TnIispetitionISfiied DYtnepetitioner/accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C..seeking anticipatory|DallIn|Cr.No.183/2015|Of|Kollegala Town P.S., Chamarajanagara, in respect ofthe offences punishable under Sections 21(4) and21(4A), of MMDR Act, 1957 and under Sections42(1), 43(2), 31R of KMMCR Rules and under Section379 of IPC by allowing this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the|course of arguments, has contended that, therespondent-Police registered a case against thepetitioner and others for the aforesaid offences, alleging that the accused was illegally transporting the.Sand in bullock carts near Cauvery river shore,Dasanapura village on 21.11.2015 at about 8.00 a.m.On receiving the credible information, respondent-Police nad formed the team and gone to the spot andfound that the said bullock carts were loaded with/sand. It is contended that, name of the petitioner isnot found in the FIR and therefore, he is entitled forDail. It is further contended that, petitioner nails fromvery respectable family and is ready to abide by anyconditions imposed by this Court and furnisn adequatesurety to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, praystnat considering the reasons made out in tne petitionne may be granted anticipatory bail by allowing the)petition.|
&. Per contra, learned Government Pleaderappearing|forrespondent-Policenasvehemently|opposed the Dail petition ontne ground that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner and oncredible information received that the accused are'transporting the sand illegally in tne bullock carts,when questioned accused nas not produced anypermitOf|licence. Further,necontends|that,investigation nas been completed and cnargesneet is.filed in CC No.218/2016 which discloses the name of.tne petitioner in connection with Crime No.183/2015.and the IO nas recorded tne statement of the!witnesses and conducted manazar and as the|accused was absconding from the date of commissionof offence that itself is prima facie material to showthat he is involved in the offences and therefore, he is.not entitled to release on bail. Hence, he prayed fordismissal of the Dail petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the.petitioners and learned Government Pleader and onperusal of the records, it is clear that Crime No.
Page 2 of 3
183/2015 had been registered against the accusedand other persons for illegal transportation of sand inbullock carts and after completion of the investigation,IO has filed the chnargesneet. The apprehension of thelearned Government Pleader that if the petitioner isenlarged on bDail, ne would tamper with tneprosecution witnesses and hamper the prosecution —case it could be suitably met with, by imposing certain.CONCItIONS toSafeguard tneinterestof.theprosecution.|
6. Therefore, in the above said facts andcircumstances of the case, I am of the considered.view that, the petition is liable to be allowed by.granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to.the following conditions:- O
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under|Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner shall be released on bail in the|eVeNT|of.tne lrarrest.inconnectionwitn—Cr.No.183/2015 of Kollegala Town Police on thefollowing conditions:- —
(i) Petitioner shall appear himself before|the Investigating Officer within twenty daysfrom the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder and shall execute a personal bonds fora sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousandonly), with one surety for the likesum to theSatisfaction of the Investigating Officer inCr.No.183/2015 of Kollegal Town P.S.
(li) Petitioner/accused shall cooperatewitn—tnelO.during|tneCOUTFSEOT|investigation.
(til)Petitioner/AccusedSnallNot|indulge in Nampering the investigation and ~—tamper the’ prosecution witnesses.
IV).Petitioner/Accused_ Snallmarktheir attendance before tne Investigating|Officer once in fortnight as per the Englisnmonthly calendar in between 10. A.M. and.
������
'*���,* *����������5�������5�����5���������������5�������������5�������#�����*
134 ,�����������%%���������������������������������%��#������%��3����������%��5����*
����������
���B
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…