MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No. 7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 379, 411, 447, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and 23 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957, registered in R.C. No. 15(A)/2012 and pending in Spl. C.C. No. 135/2013. Brief facts of the case are that the registered organization by name Samaja Parivarthana Samsthe has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging that, there is illegal mining in Bellary District which has resulted in huge loss of revenue to the Government and despite complaints; no action has been taken by the Government. Hence it sought necessary order/directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court to stop the illegal mining and transport thereof.

(2.) THE writ petition (Civil) No. 562/2009 filed by Samaja Parivarthana Samsthe was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the said case, the Hon'ble supreme Court directed the CBI to register a case against the companies, who have indulged in the illegal mining. In pursuance thereof, CBI, ACB, Bangalore, registered the above case in RC No. 15(A)/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420, 227, 447, 468, 471 of IPC, Sec. 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1) and 23 of M.M.R.D. Act, 1957, against the Director of M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., unknown officials of N.M.D.C, unknown Public Servant and others.

(3.) IT is submitted that, an application under 439 was filed before the Trial Court specifically contending that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the Investigating agency in the above case. It was emphasized that the bail is to be granted to accused as of a right and denial thereof is an exception. It is also emphases the date of arrest of accused No. 7 being 24.05.2013 and the charge sheet having been filed on 27.05.2013 clearly demonstrates that the investigating agency has effected arrest of accused No. 7 in order to complete the formality of arrest though there was no compelling circumstances to arrest accused No. 7.