Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 581 (KAR)

Gundappa v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-05

G.NARENDRA

body2015
ORDER : G. Narendra, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The complainant is the Chief Officer of Kerur Town Panchayat. It is alleged that the petitioners herein, who are excavating silt from the town lake and in the process had damaged and destroyed the fencing that had been put up around the lake and that the excavation of the soil was without the required permission. It is alleged that the soil and silt have been transported by a truck bearing No. KA 49 1927 and a tractor bearing Reg. No. KA 29 4868, a tipper bearing Reg. No. KA 28 B 5751 and a JCB bearing Reg. No. KA 24 M 1738 were also been used for the said purpose. It is further stated that the complainant has been advised not to permit excavation of soil from the lake bed by the District Town Development Cell and the reason being that it was affecting drinking water, and hence, the complainant accordingly asked the petitioners to stop their activity, upon which the petitioners are said to have assaulted him and told him to do whatever he wants. The complaint further reveals that the complainant returned to office and had started writing down the complaint to be submitted to the jurisdictional police and that at around 12 noon all the accused, who had by then consumed alcohol, barged into the office and assaulted the complainant and the Junior Engineer Y.B. Jogi. They also broke the steel chairs using stones and the complainant and another have abused used in filthy language. It is also alleged that they were restrained from discharging their duties. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to the complainant offences have been registered under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 31 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Apart from the offences, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Court of the District and Sessions Judge at Bagalkot. Apart from the offences, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Court of the District and Sessions Judge at Bagalkot. The Trial Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on the premise that if such a petition is entertained and if a relief is granted it would send out a wrong message to the society and would also indirectly encourage people to indulge in similar activities. 3. The petitioners' Counsel would submit that the petitioners are all villagers and that they were removing the soil for bona fide use only and he would further submit that there was a Town Panchayat Resolution which permitted the villagers to remove the sand from the lake bed and he would submit that the allegation of assault on the public servant is false and incorrect, and hence, prays that the petition be allowed and the respondents be restrained from arresting the petitioners. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners had indeed assaulted the public servants and that the complainant had been assaulted on his vital parts and has been examined by the Government Doctor. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the reasoning by the Trial Court. 6. At this juncture, the Counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of the Court to the age of the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioners 1 to 3 may be considered as a special case in the light of their advanced age and would submit that they are physically incapable of indulging in physical violence and he would further submit that the petitioners 4 to 7 would surrender before the Trial Court and would seek a regular bail. The appeal of the Counsel for petitioners appears to be reasonable and merits consideration. Hence, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioners 1 to 3 are enlarged on bail and petitioners 4 to 7 shall surrender before the Trial Court and seek appropriate orders. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and furnish two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 7. Petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioners 1 to 3 are enlarged on bail and petitioners 4 to 7 shall surrender before the Trial Court and seek appropriate orders. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and furnish two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 7. Petition is ordered accordingly. If the petitioners 4 to 7 surrender and prefer any application, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The observation regarding the merits of the case made hereinabove are made for the limited purpose of considering the bail application only and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the above observation and shall independently consider and dispose of the case on merits.