Karnataka High Court
Prashurama S/O Vitthalappa Namadev vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100895 OF 2019
BETWEEN
PARASHURAMA
S/O VITTHALAPPA NAMADEV
AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAVANINAGAR,
CHALAGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RANEBENNUR RURAL
POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN RANEBENNUR RURAL
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.72/2019 REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1908 AND UNDER SECTION
9B OF EXPLOSIVE ACT 1884.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in connection with Crime No.72/2019 of Ranebennur Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and under Section 9B of the Explosive Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, on 04.04.2019, at about 6.30 a.m., the C.P.I. of Ranebennur received credible information that a person was in possession of large quantity of explosive. Immediately, the CPI, along with his staff and panchas, :3: went to the spot and there he found the petitioner in possession of the explosives and apprehended the petitioner. A mahazar was drawn and thereafter a complaint was registered in this regard.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused is a tailor; he is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the place from where the explosive substances have been seized does not belong to him; it belongs to one Namdevappa Namdev. It is his further submission that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since 2½ months he is in custody and the accused is not required for custodial interrogation. He further submitted that though the complaint reveals that the said explosive substances have been taken from one Anilkumar from Koppa, he has not been arrayed as an accused and no :4: investigation has been done in this behalf. He submits that the petitioner/accused is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused is involved in heinous offence which is punishable with ten years imprisonment; the petitioner/accused was found in possession of live explosives that too in large quantities. She further submitted that the said place from where the explosives are seized belongs to the brother of the accused; there is ample material as against the petitioner/accused and if he is released on bail, he may indulge in similar type of activities, abscond and may not be available for interrogation and trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition. :5:
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On a close reading of the contents of the complaint, it is seen that the police went to the spot on credible information received by them and apprehended the accused and also found large quantities of explosives stored at that place. That is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the place, where the explosives have been stored, does not belong him and it is not standing in his name and he is no way concerned with the alleged crime. In order to substantiate the fact that the said place belongs to the accused, no material has been produced. Even as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, the explosives have been stored for the purpose of crushing stones. That is a matter which :6: requires consideration and may take further more time. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, in connection Crime No.72/2019 of Ranebennur Rural Police Station, subject to following conditions:
(a) the petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly;
(c) he shall not indulge in similar type of activities;:7:
(d) he shall mark his attendance once in a month preferably on the first day of every month till the trial is concluded; and
(e) he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms