Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5313
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
BHASKAR DATTA NAIK – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY – Respondent
CRL.P 103792 of 2024
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of specific allegations against petitioners and absence of criminal antecedents, subject to conditions for cooperation with investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 4(1A), 21 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 132, 121(1), 303(2), 3(5) - Anticipatory bail sought for non-bailable offences related to illegal mining and obstruction of public servant - Petitioners claimed no involvement in offences, apprehending arrest - Court noted lack of specific allegations against petitioners and absence of criminal antecedents - Conditions imposed for bail granted. (Paras 1, 5, 10, 12)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail is contingent upon the nature of allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation - The court must consider the gravity of the alleged offences and the potential impact on society. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, accused of illegal mining and obstructing a public servant, sought anticipatory bail, asserting no involvement in the alleged offences. The complaint involved an incident where a tipper was stopped for inspection, leading to an assault on the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no prior criminal record and that the allegations against them were not sufficiently grave to warrant denial of bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the allegations against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of specific allegations against them justified the grant of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Result: Petition is allowed.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS S’ for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime no.138/2024 of Bhatkal Rural Police Station, Bhatkal, for offences punishable under Sections 4 , 4(1A) , 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDRA’ for short) and Sections 132 , 121 (1) , 303 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS ’for short), by accused no.1 and 2 (petitioners).
2. Sri Narayana V. Yaji, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 was 38 years old driver and permanent resident of Adikal, Manki, while petitioner no.2 was 24 years old businessman and permanent resident of Mastimane, Manki. It was submitted, though petitioners had not committed or involved in any offences, they were apprehending arrest in view of registration of Crime no.138/2024 against them for non-bailable offences (supra).
3. It was submitted, case of prosecution even according to complaint dated 28.10.2024 was complainant - Bhagappa Kadagal – Police Constable, Bhatkal Rural Police Station, and Basavaraj DK – CPC-959 were on duty at Shirali check-post, at 9:05 a.m., a Tipper was proceeding towards Murdeshwar. Despite complainant trying to stop it for enquiry, its driver sped away. He noted its registration number was KA-20-B-9960 and water was dripping from its loading bucket, indicating that it was transporting sand. Complainant chased it and found it entering compound of JSW Steel mart at Bhatkal.
4. On checking, he found it was carrying sand. On enquiry, petitioner no.1 that there was no permit. Complainant informed Rannagowda Patil, Police Sub-Inspector (‘PSI’), who informed that he would come within five minutes. Meanwhile, an unknown person assaulted complainant, pushed him aside, entered vehicle, after asking driver to go out of vehicle, unloaded sand and drove it away. Same was videographed by complainant using his mobile phone and informed to PSI. On enquiry, he came to know that person who had assaulted him and prevented him from performing his duty was Noorulla Hassan (accused no.3), and names of driver and cleaner were Bhaskar and Manoj (accused no.1 and 2) respectively. Complainant alleged that accused were illegally extracting and transporting sand, without any valid permit transportation for personal gain, by causing damage to environment and in process had by use of criminal force obstructed public servant from performing his duties. Based on same, Crime no.138/2024 was registered by Bhatkal Rural Police for aforesaid offences.
5. It was submitted as per complaint it was accused no.3, who had unloaded and took vehicle. And there were no specific allegations against petitioners, especially as accused no.3 had forced petitioners to get down from tipper before assaulting complainant. On above grounds, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted when complainant was on duty at Shirali Check-post and tried to stop Tipper bearing no.KA-20/B-9960 for checking, its driver - accused no.1 drove it without stopping. After chasing it to JSW Steel Mart compound and enquiring about it being loaded with sand without permit, in violation of MMDRA, complainant informed PSI. But, accused pushed him away, unloaded tipper and drove it away, which was videographed by complainant. It was submitted, prosecution had also recovered CC Camera footage. Said material would implicate accused. Besides, investigation was still in progress and presence of petitioners for custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain other details. It was submitted, in case of grant of bail, petitioners were likely to commit similar offences. On said grounds opposed petition.
7. Heard learned counsel.
8. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether petitioners are entitled for anticipatory
