Ajay Jain vs State

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3, 36, 42, 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Consistent Rule, 1994 and Section 21(4), 21(4A), 4, 4(1A) of Mines and Mineral Regulation Development Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.76/2016 and now pending in C.C.No.104/2017 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Belthangady.

The prosecution case in brief, that the accused persons stored sand about 600 cubic meter in land bearing Sy.No.251/2P2 which is a patta land owned by one Ramesh Hegde S/o. Chennappa of Hosangadi Village. The further allegation is that the sand was stolen from the government land and stored in the private land, without obtaining any licence from the concerned department and thereby causing loss to the Ex-chequer. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences against one Ramesh Hegde/accused No.1.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that so far as the petitioner/accused No.5 is concerned there is no prima-facie material, even his name is not appeared in the FIR. Only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the other accused he has been arrayed as one of the accused in the said case.

Per contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the materials placed on record there is a prima-facie case even against the present petitioner and he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case. The other accused persons who applied for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. were enlarged on bail. But so far as the present petitioner is concerned earlier also he approached this Court along with two other accused Antony Miranda and Praveen Miranda and the present petitioner was petitioner No.3 in Crl.P.No.4540/2017. This Court after considering the materials, by its order dated 11.09.2017 rejected the bail petition and in Para 4 of the said order it is observed by this Court ""In the light of the above, the petition is dismissed and in the event petitioner No.3 serve advance copy of bail petition to the public prosecutor, surrender before the Court and move for bail, his petition shall be considered in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible"". Therefore looking to the order of this Court his prayer for seeking anticipatory bail has already been rejected by this Court with a direction that he can surrender before the concerned court by serving advance copy of the bail petition to the public prosecutor. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail more particularly when this Court has already rejected the anticipatory bail application and observed that he has to surrender before the Court below.

Accordingly, criminal petition is hereby rejected. As observed by this Court, after he surrenders before the concerned Court by serving an advance copy of the bail petition to the public prosecutor and in case if such application is filed, the concerned Court shall consider the same as early as possible and if possible on the same day, and to dispose off in accordance with law.