The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on valid grounds and considering the nature of the offences alleged.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 80/2022 of Toranagallu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6(a) And 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 And Sections 4, 8, 3(2)(I), 6 Of Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order 1981 And Sections 3, 4, 12, 18 And 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order 2016.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2012 at about 7.00 a.m., the complainant being food inspector received information from the Tahsildar of Sandur Taluk about transportation of PDS rice, immediately he intimated to his higher authorities. Afterwards, as per their direction he went to Toranagallu Police Station, intimated the same to A.S.I., thereafter accompanied with his staff and panchas went behind Karnataka Bank situated near Toranagallu Railway Station. Afterwards, they noticed lorry bearing registration No. KA-34/B-8721 loaded with rice bags, on seeing them, the persons who were present at the spot ran away by leaving the lorry there itself. On verification of the said lorry they found 499 plastic bags of 50 k.g. each Public Distribution Rice. The complainant seized the said rice bags under panchanama and took one k.g. of rice as sample, thereafter, gave the complaint against the driver and owner of the vehicle. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 80/2022 of Toranagallu Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The name of the petitioner is shown as the accused and lorry owner in the FIR and after apprehension of his arrest the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 579/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by order dated 11.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and not committed any offence as alleged merely because his lorry alleged to have been used for transporting of PDS rice, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner/accused was not present at the time of loading PDS rice in lorry. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Police in investigation. The offence alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the investigation is still in progress. Totally 249 quintals of PDS rice worth Rs. 3,73,500/- have been seized from the lorry of this petitioner. The PDS rice bags were meant for distribution to the poor and needy peoples. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The Investigation Officer has to ascertain source of PDS rice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and other papers.

7. The accusations leveled against the petitioner is that he is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-34/B-8721 wherein PDS rice bags were loaded. The present petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of loading or transporting the said PDS rice. The petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Investigation Officer in investigation. The main objection of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted