The State of Karnataka v. Mr Ranjeth Shetty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4170 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DEPT. MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP) AND: MR. RANJETH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. JAYARAM SHETTY, R/AT JAYAPADMA NIVASA, NEAR GRAMA SANGA HONNAKATTE, KULAI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. - 575 001. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRIMINAL MISC.NO.167/2019.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 08.02.2019 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Crl.Misc.no.167/2019, this Petition is filed.

¶2Sri Mahesha P., learned HCGP for petitioner-State submitted that for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 9, 22, 23-C(1)(e) and (g) & 24(1)(e) read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

(Act), proceedings in PCR.no.13/2019 on file of JMFC III Court, Mangaluru were initiated. In said proceedings, vehicle bearing Reg.no.KA-19/AB-1357 was seized and seeking for release of same, an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed in Crl.Misc.no.167/2019. Impugned order is passed allowing said application. Contending that same was without reference to

Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (Rules), which provides for specific manner of consideration of application for release and contending that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Section Forester and another v. Mansur Ali Khan reported in 2004 (5) Kar.L.J. 466 (SC) under similar provisions under Forest Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held power to release vehicle should be exercised under exceptional circumstances and even in such case, cannot be granted except by imposition of conditions mentioned under Special Enactment. It was submitted that Rule 43(8) of Rules stipulated condition of furnishing of Bank Guarantee for double value of vehicle. In instant case, learned Judge had allowed application and ordered release of vehicle on indemnity bond with surety for likesum, which would not be in conformity with Rule 43(8) of Rules.

¶3It was further submitted that this Court in Crl.P.no.3801/2019 [2026:KHC:31770] had considered similar orders and allowed petitions filed by State and submit that impugned order would be squarely covered by same.

¶4Respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶5Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

¶6This petition is by State challenging an order passed on an application for release of vehicle on ground of failure to impose appropriate conditions mandated by Special Enactment/Rules. A perusal of impugned order reveals that vehicle was seized for offences under Act/Rules which is Special Enactment. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Section Forester (supra), an application for release can be considered only as provided under Special Enactment/Rules, namely Rule 43(8) of Rules, which specifically mandate that vehicle can be released only after furnishing of Bank Guarantee to an amount double value of vehicle. Though on this count impugned order would require to be set aside, taking note of fact that vehicle in question has already been released and substantial time has lapsed, it is found appropriate to modify same by imposing condition as would bring order in conformity with Rules and ratio laid down by Apex Court.

¶7Accordingly, Petition is allowed. Order dated

08.02.2019 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Crl.Misc.no.167/2019 stands modified by adding condition as follows: Respondent-accused is required to furnish a renewable bank guarantee equal to double value of vehicle as mentioned in seizure panchanama, value assessed or mentioned in surety bond filed by respondent-accused or insured declared value in insurance policy for relevant period whichever is higher. Said condition shall be in addition to conditions imposed and shall be complied within two months of date of receipt of certified copy or within such period as may be extended by learned District Judge. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15