Manikanth vs. The State Through

Crime No.140/2020 has been registered based on the complaint lodged on 30.10.2020 by Rajendrakumar S/o. Shamrao who is the Food Inspector, Tahsil Office, Basavakalyan. It is averred in the said complaint that on 30.10.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. he received a credible information that unauthorized rice bags were transported in four lorries and immediately he went near Gandhi Circle, Basavakalyan Town along with his staff and panch witnesses and intercepted the lorries and on enquiry with the drivers of the said lorries, he came to know that the rice bags which were being transported in the lorries belonged to the petitioner herein. The drivers had failed to produce valid documents in respect of the goods transported. The said lorries and the rice found in the vehicles were all seized under Mahazar and there afterwards a complaint was lodged resulting in registration of FIR in Crime No.140/2020 and the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.9 in the said case. Apprehending his arrest in these two cases, the petitioner had filed bail applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.Nos.626/2020 and 625/2020 respectively before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Basavakalyan and the said petitions were rejected by the said Court on 30.11.2020. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a trader in rice and he has got a licence for the same. He submits that the petitioner has got a valid registration certificate under GST and the goods which were allegedly seized on 29.10.2020 and 30.10.2020 respectively were being transported by the petitioner's father under valid permissions. The learned senior counsel has taken this Court through the trade licence, GST certificate, invoices for having purchased the rice bags, APMC permission, permission for transport etc. and would contend that the rice bags were being legally transported by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner and his father are being targeted by the officials for extraneous reasons. He has referred to certain complaints lodged on 01.07.2019 onwards by the petitioner before the juri ictional Superintendent of Police and also before the juri ictional Inspector General of Police with regard to the high handed manner in which the officials were treating the petitioner and his father. He submits that case after case are being falsely filed against the petitioner and an attempt is made to harass and coerce the petitioner to come to terms with the corrupt officials. He submits that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is only seven years and offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. He also submits that the petitioner has already filed necessary application before the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent officer for release of the vehicles and the food articles and along with the said application, he has also filed all the documents and they have referred to by the Deputy Commissioner to the APMC for the purpose of verification, who in turn have certified that the documents were genuine. He submits that the petitioner apprehends that in the event of his arrest by the police, he is likely to be unnecessarily harassed and therefore, he prays to allow the petitions.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the bail petitions contends that the petitioner is involved in similar cases earlier and while granting anticipatory bail to him in the earlier cases, there is a specific condition that he shall not indulge in similar offences in future and in spite of the same, he has indulged in the present two cases. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary having regard to number of cases registered against him and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he would further continue to indulge himself in similar cases. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petitions.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the material available on record.

From the documents which are made available to this Court by the petitioner, it prima facie appears that the petitioner is carrying business along with his father under a valid trade licence which stands in the name of his father. The GST registration certificate and also the invoices in respect of the rice purchased, the permission to transport the rice and the permission from the APMC etc. would prima facie go to show that the petitioner was transporting the rice seized on 29.10.2020 and 30.10.2020 respectively in these two cases under valid documents. The petitioner has approached the Deputy Commissioner and produced all necessary documents before him and has sought for custody of the vehicles and also the rice bags seized by the police in these two cases. The documents which were presented by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner were referred to the APMC for the purpose of certification with regard to genuineness of those documents. There afterwards, the Secretary of APMC Yadgir has issued a communication to the Deputy Commissioner certifying that the documents produced by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner in support of his claim to the vehicles and the rice bags which have been seized in these cases as genuine. There are complaints available on record which would go to show that the petitioner has complained to the higher police officials against the harassment meted out on him by certain officials of the department for extraneous reasons. From perusal of these complaints which are available on record, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being implicated in false cases for vengeance cannot be ruled out. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is seven years and the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Having regard to the over all material available on record and also considering the documents filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which prima facie establish that the goods were being transported in the lorries belonging to the petitioner on 29.10.2020 and 30.10.2020 under valid documents, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in these two cases. Accordingly, I pass the following: