iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8 m DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10089/2011 BETWEEN: Hanurnantappa, SI Fakeerappa Malammanavar, Age: 60 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Belur village, Tq. Ranebennur, Dist: Haven. . . .Petitioner (By Shri. Padmavati Bahubali Danawade, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka by Its Ranebennur Rural Police, Ranebennur, Represented by State Public Prosecutor. High Count Circuit Bench Building, Dharwad. .. . Respondent (By Shni. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to direct the concerned P.S.I. of Ranebennur Rural Police Station, Ranebennur, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.250/2010 of Ranebennur Rural P.S. Punishable under Section 143, 147. 323, 324, 341, 504, 353, 506, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mohammad Zuber N, Tahasildar, Ranebennur, at about 05:30 p.m. had visited Tungabhadra river of Belur village along with his staff, as per directions by his superiors and on the information received that there was illegal sand mining on the river bed. The complainant had found that there were several people carrying on sand mining operations. When he directed them to stop further activity, he was attacked by several persons, numbering over fifty. It is on the basis of his complaint, that the lease holders and the labourers have been arrested and cases have been registered against them while 3 cases were also registered against many others including the present petitioner, the petitioner claims that he has no connection with the sand mining activity. He is not a labourer engaged by the lease holders and that the complainant has been generally lodged against the entire body of villagers. The present petitioner, who is aged 60 years old, is incapable of assaulting anybody let alone a Tahasildar and therefore, claims for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections to contend that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered at this point of time since thern matter is under continuing investigation, as to the involvement of the several persons in the incident and submits that the petition be rejected. 4. Given the above facts and circumstances since several people have been taken into custody, in so far as the allegations are concerned, the further cases against the entire 4 body ofmen ofthe village, including the present petitioner may not be established prima fade case. However, it may be the subject matter of the trial. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail at this point of time. Accordingly, the trial Court having rejected the bail petition of the petitioner while dismissing the bail applications of other petitioners who may have been directly involved may be out of place. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of U0,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe trial Court without seeking leave ofthat Court. -. S 5 4) He shall not seek to induàe or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) He shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Sd/a Rsh JZ1D