- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103802 OF 2025 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MADARSAB S/O MEHABOOBSAB KACHAPUR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O, ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANILKUMAR H. BUDARPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, THROUGH VISHWANAT H.V., R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN C.C. NO.673/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELABURGA, ITINERARY COURT KUKANOOR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4(1), (1-A), 21(1) AND 21(2) OF MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused No.22 is before this Court under 482 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in C.C. No.673 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFc, Yelburga, Itinerary Court, Kukanoor, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), (1-A), 21(1) and 21(2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Private Complaint was filed on behalf of the State against 37 persons and the learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the alleged offences, has issued summons to the accused. Appearing arrest in the case, petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.22 before the learned Magistrate had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.302 of 2025 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court, which was rejected on 23.08.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. The learned Magistrate is in the habit of taking the accused into custody in cases registered for cognizable offences. Therefore, petitioner apprehends that is likely to be remanded to judicial custody in the event he appears before the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that Trial Court has only issued summons to the petitioner and therefore, apprehension expressed is misconceived. 6. In Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1, in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "9. On the strength of the aforesaid allegations, which are certainly serious in nature, the prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 is opposed vehemently by the learned Additional Solicitor General. But in our considered view there are at least three factors which tilt the balance in favour of the appellants herein. They are:- (i) Admittedly, the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the appellants may be required; (ii) In the reply/counter filed before the High Court, the CBI had taken a categorical stand that the Court had merely issued summons and not warrant for the appearance of the accused. In the case of Shri Deepak Gupta, CBI had taken a stand before the Special Court that “the presence of the accused is not required for the investigation but it is certainly required for trial” and that therefore he needs to be present. Therefore, all that the CBI wanted was the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial. In such circumstances, to oppose the anticipatory bail request at this stage may not be proper; and (iii) All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out by records. When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, we fail to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested. 10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. We must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these appeals." 7. In the present case, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is likely to be remanded to judicial custody, in the event he appears before the learned Magistrate in response to the summons issued to him, since the offences alleged against the accused are cognizable in nature. He has brought to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 notice of this Court that accused No.30 who was remanded to judicial custody in the present case, has been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.103130 of 2025. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The respondent – Police or any other Police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in C.C. No.673 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga, Itinerary Court, Kukanoor, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), (1-A), 21(1) and 21(2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12838 CRL.P No. 103802 of 2025 Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. ii. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons. iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon. iv. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31