DUNDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.172/2019 of Afzalpur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 353 , 307 , 109 , 379 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ' IPC ') and section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation) Act , 1957 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ' MMDR Act ').

(2.) The allegation against the present petitioner in the complaint is that he was the driver of the tipper which was found transporting illegally mined sand in it without any license or permit. It is further alleged that the present petitioner is the driver of the said tipper, attempted to run over the said tipper upon the complainant, who incidentally, was a Police Officer, stating that his master has directed him that in such a situation he should not stop the vehicle and run the said vehicle upon the person who obstructs him. Thus, a complaint was filed against both the driver of the alleged tipper and his master for the offences punishable under sections 353 , 307 , 109 , 379 read with section 34 of IPC and section 21(1) of MMDR Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, submitted that a bare reading of the complaint at this stage and in prima facie would clearly go to show that the driver of the vehicle after getting down from the vehicle and spending some time with the complainant and his staff is shown to have waited for considerable time till the complainant attempted to secure concerned staff and panchas for further process. Then at that stage, stating that his master had directed him not to stop the vehicle, is said to have attempted to run the tipper upon the complainant and could not able to succeed in the said attempt. Stating so, the learned counsel submitted that such a recital in the complaint prima facie shows that the complaint is a fabricated one and had really the driver was instructed so and was intended to run over the tipper upon the Police Officer, he would have done it at the first instance rather than waiting for sometime. He further submits that accused no.1 has already been enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail, as such, on the ground of parity also the present petitioner deserves the same benefit.