- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103384 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: *SHARNAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA YARASHI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, * R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL-583 232. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL, DEPT. BY SRI. VISHWANATH H.V., GEOLOGIST, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN C.C. NO.673/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELABURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4(1), 1(A), 21(1) AND 21(2) OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957, INSOFAR AS ACCUSED NO.19, IN THE INTEREST IF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: * Corrected vide Court Order dt: 24.11.2025 Sd/- SVSJ Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in C.C. No.673/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelaburga for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 1(A), 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that private complaint has been submitted by the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal against 38 persons and the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.19 in the complaint. After taking cognizance of the alleged offence, Trial Court has issued summons to the accused. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.257/2025 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 31.07.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds in the petition submits that the learned Magistrate is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 in the habit of remanding the accused in cases registered for cognizable and non-bailable offences after they appear in response to the summons. Therefore, he had approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. 6. In the case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 in paragraph No.9 and 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "9. On the strength of the aforesaid allegations, which are certainly serious in nature, the prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 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 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." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 7. In the present case, apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Trial Court is likely to remand the petitioner to judicial custody, in the event he appears before the Trial Court in response to the summons issued to him. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for a period of five years. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra), 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.673/2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelaburga, for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 1(A), 21(1) and 21(2) of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11856 CRL.P No. 103384 of 2025 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 Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (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 involve in similar offences in future. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE Rsh CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 110