—1— IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3QTI1 DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO.10470/201 1 Between: 1. Mr.Gabriel Sydney, S/o.Late William Sartho, Aged about 33 years, Manager, M/s.Alvares and Thomas, Opp,: Karwar Port, Baithkol, Karwar. 2. Mr.Keshav Kiran S/o.K.Seshappa Devadiga, Aged about 52 years, Senior Manager, M/s.Aivares and Thomas, Opp.: Karwar Port, Baithkol, Karwar. Petitioners (By Murthy D,Naik, Advocate) And: The State of Karnataka, By Karwar Town PS Police, Presentiv being investigated by: Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fraud Squad, C,I.D., Canton Bhavan, Palace Road, Bangalore-56000 1. Respondent (By Sri. Vinavak Kulkarni. HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438(1) of Cr,P.C. seeking to issue a direction u/S.438(l) of Cr,P.C. that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with and arising out of Karwar Town P.S., Crime No.154/2010 for the offences p/u/s 409 & 379 of IPC shall be released on bail. -2- This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard petitioners’ counsel Sri.Murthv D.Naik and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State in respect of the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners who are the officers of M/s.Alvares and Thomas, 2. The complaint allegation in short is that, following the case in FIR No.6/2009-10 on 15.03.2010, the port of Karwar was visited by the Forest Officer and they found that out of 50,000/- MT of iron ore, which was seized, there was only 14,500/- MT iron ore found available and rest of the quantity was missing and therefore complaint was lodged stating that there has been theft of iron ore and registered a case in Crime No.154/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 410 and 379 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Murthv D.Naik for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the report filed before the CJM Court, Karwar, wherein it is stated by the Dy.S.P., Fraud Squad, C.I.D., Bangalore, that the petitioner’s company is -3- also suspected to be involved in the alleged offence. The petitioners are before this court for anticipatorY bail. Moreover it is submitted that this Court on earlier occasion has granted anticipatory bail in the case of like nature pertaining to the Port of Belekeri of Ankola in the Criminal Petition No.7770/20 10 and other petitions by its order dated 02.11.2010. Further submission is made that, even in the complaint that is lodged by the Forest Officer (as per Annexure-A) it is stated that the entire stock of iron order was entrusted with the port officer of Karwar. Therefore, the question of petitioner be put in a possession of the iron ore does not arise. On these grounds anticipatory bail is sought. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand referring to the objections filed submitted that there is no theft of the iron ore and it is a prima facie case of the petitioner having committed theft of the iron ore and grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would effect the investigation. 5. Having thus heard both sides, taking note of the grounds put forward by the petitioners’ counsel and this -4- Court also having granted anticipatory bail in like cases in respect of the Belekeri Port, Ankola, following which this court had granted anticipatory bail in other instances, in my view, petitioners put on terms to cooperate with the investigating agency and hence the anticipatory bail sought can be granted. 6. In the result, in the event of arrest the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail subject to the petitioner satisfying the following conditions: i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each along with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. ii) They shall cooperate with the 1.0. during investigation of the case by appearing before him as and when required for the purpose of investigation. iii) They shall produce before the 1.0. the documents showing their permanent residential address. -5- iv) They shall also produce before the 1.0. the names and address of the person/s responsible for the day-to-day affairs of their company. v) They shall also produce before the 1.0. such documents pertaining to their company as would be required by the 1.0. for the purpose of investigation. vi) They shall produce the name and permanent addresses of the Managing Director and other Directors of their company, so as to enable the 1.0. to interrogate them, if necessary, during investigation of the case. vii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court, without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. viii) In the event of the petitioner failing to abide any of the above conditions, anticipatory bail would be cancelled. sd/a JUDGE Vnp’