IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JULY 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4321/2015 BETWEEN: 1. NAVEEN @ NAVEENKUMAR S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT AGRAHARA, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA AREBOMMANAHALLI POST THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI 2. K MANJUNATHA S/O KEMPA BYRAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT #2, AREBOMMANAHALLI AREBOMMANAHALLI POST TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI 3. JAGADISH S/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NEAR THOMOUS MEMORIAL SCHOOL VAJARAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123
2 4. THIMMARAYAPPA @ THIMMARAJU K N S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT #44, KEREKATTIANURU SOMPURA HOBLI 5. RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR K T S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT KARENAHALLI VILLAGE KULUVANAHALLI POST TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI 6. KEMPABAIRAIAH S/O PUTTABAIRAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT GNGEGAUDANAPALYA AREBOMMANAHALLI POST THYAMAGONDALU POST... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARASEGOWDA K, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DABUS PET P S BANGALORE DISTRICT REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-562111... RESPONDENT
3 (BY SRI.B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETRS. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO.91/2015 OF DOBBESPET P.S., BENGALURU DIST., WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND SEC.4,3,5,9B OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 AND SEC.42,43,3(1),44(1),44(2) OF KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONSISTENT RULE, 1994 AND SEC.4(1),4(1A),21 OF MMRD ACT, 1957. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioners are charged for the offence punishable Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 4, 3, 5 and 9B of Explosive Substances Act, 1906; section 4(1), 4(1A) and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 42, 43.3(1), 44(1) and 44(2) of the Minor Mineral Consistent Rule 1994. 2. It is the case of the complainant is that the petitioners are indulged in committing illegal quarrying and the police have seized a Nano car and 15 meters of wire that was used for blasting. It is also alleged that the police found a compressor,
4 explosive substances and a crane was at the spot for the purpose of committing the offence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of the land and have not committed any offence as alleged in the case. It is submitted that the crane and other equipments were being used for leveling the land. Hence, by imposing any stringent condition the petitioners be granted bail is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Pleader opposes for grant of bail and submits that if the petitioners are given the benefit of bail, they may indulge in the same activity again. 5. Heard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The apprehension of the prosecution be met by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioners. Accordingly, petition under Section 438 is allowed subject to following conditions:
5 1. Petitioners shall surrender within one month from the date of this order before the Investigating Officer of the Jurisdictional Police Station, and in such event, petitioners shall be released on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 2. Petitioners shall, without fail, cooperate with the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation; 3. Petitioners shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner; 4. Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Investigating Officer; 5. The petitioners are also directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when they are required;
6 6. If there is any single absence on the part of the petitioners in appearing before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer should report back the same to the Court. lnn Sd/- JUDGE