IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CiRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1 2 DAY OF JANUARY2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10024/2011 BETWEEN: Megharaj, S/o. Mallappa Irani, Aged about 50 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Belur, Tq: Ranebennur, Dist: Haven. 2. Jagadish, S/o. Timmanna Gollar, Aged about 27 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Belur, Tq: Ranebennur, Dist: Haven. 3. Halappa Kariyappa Giniyappanavar @ Giniyarnrnanavar, Aged about 30 years, 0cc: Agriculture, R/o. Belur, Tq: Ranebennur. 4. Govindappa, S/o. Kariyappa Irani, Aged about 20 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Belur, Tq. Ranebennur. Dist: Haven. .. .PETIT1ONERS (By Shri. B.V.Somapur, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Represented by Ranebennur Rural Police, By State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. . . . RESPON DENT (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkami, GP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the Ranebennur Rural Police be directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of their airst in Ranebennur Rural Police Station Crime No.250/2010 under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 341, 504, 353, 506, 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of the Principal J.M.F.C., Ranebennur. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is alleged that, Mahamad Juber N., the Tahasildar of Ranebennur has stated that on 30.11 .2010 at about 05.30 p.m. when he and his staff went to Tungabhadra river in Belur village of Ranebennur Taluk, to stop the unauthorised removal of sand, by using motor boats, in the 3 river, at that time the accused, armed with clubs, attacked him and his staffand there was an attempt to kill him and it is in this background that they have lodged a case. The Jurisdictional Police registered a case and arrested the two accused — petitioners, who had been remanded to judicial custody. One of them was a lessee who was licensed to mine the sand and transport it from the riverbed. The Tahasildar and others are said to have sustained injuries on account of assault by the said persons who were arrested. It is noticed that those arrested persons had approached the Court of Sessions Judge at Haven, seeking bail, which has been rejected. While the Court has taken notice, that the incident had taken place two kilometers away from Belur village, where nearly 1,500 people had gathered at the spot. At that time there was an attack on the said Tahasildar by the accused, and it was held by the court, that no case was made out for grant ofbail. 3. The leaned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is a licensee and was not involved in any such S 4 alleged attack on the complainant. As seen from the complaint. there were several people who had gathered there and they may have attacked the said complainant and that the petitioner was not one of them and that a false case has been implicated apprehending that he would be arrested and therefore he is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. The mere fact that he was holding license to mine sand from the river would not raise a presumption of his involvement in any such attack on any officer against the said complaint. 5. On the other hand, the Government Pleader would submit that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner is not one of the accused. He is specifically named in the complaint and it is clear from the complaint that the Tahalsidar was specific about the allegation against the complainant. It is not only that the petitioner had attacked the complainant, he had also instigated others to assault the complainant with deadly weapons and also S joined them in doing so and therefore, the investigation agency is yet to collect the material and yet to arrest other persons involved. Hence, the bail petition of the petitioners if allowed at this stage would lead to obstruction of further investigation and threatening or influencing the prosecution witnesses who are large in number and therefore, this, the bail application is seriously opposed. 6. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the complainant being a responsible official of the State and the allegations being that he and others were attacked when the complainant and his staff sought to prevent the mining of sand on the river by the use of motor boats and since no motives can be attributed to the said complainant and his staff, the objection of the State is found to be tenable. Therefore, no ground is made out for anticipatory bail as prayed for. 1-lence, the petition is rejected. Rsh JUDGE