Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1483 (KAR)

Swamy v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-09

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of Mines and Minerals regulation of Development Act and Rules 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.241/2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2016 at about 1.30 p.m., near Bhageshpura village, the complainant gave signal to stop the Tractor and seeing them, the driver of the said Tractor fled away by leaving the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-44-T- 1614 and on verification, it was found that the driver and owner of the said Tractor, illegally and without paying royalty to the government, committed theft of sand from lake and transporting in the Tractor. The tractor and the alleged sand were seized by the police in the presence of the panch witnesses. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that it is the allegation of the complainant that the present petitioner is the owner of the alleged tractor. But he is not the RC owner of the said vehicle. He has produced the document of the said vehicle standing in the name of one Mahalingamma. Hence, it is the his contention that in view of the said document, the petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle. There is false implication of the petitioner in the case. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that the petitioner is not cooperated with the investigating agency. Hence, he is not entitled for the anticipatory bail. 6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. 7. Looking to the document produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, it indicates that the present petitioner is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. The petitioner has contended that there is false implication of his name in the case. 7. Looking to the document produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, it indicates that the present petitioner is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. The petitioner has contended that there is false implication of his name in the case. He has contended that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court, The offence is triable by the Court of Magistrate and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 8. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of Mines and Minerals regulation of Development Act and Rules 42 and 44 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.241/2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and have to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation. (iv) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.