Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivasa vs State By on 15 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
-1-
0IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7714 OF 2017
BETWEEN
Sri. Srinivasa,
S/o Arunachala,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at #109, Agra Main Road,
Kanakapura Road,
Dodda Tahathaguni,
Doddakallasandra,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-560062.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.S.Balakrishnan, Advocate)
AND
State by Bidadi Police,
Rep. by Spp,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560001.
... Respondent
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP)
-2-
This Crl.P filed u/s.439 cr.p.c praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Cr.No.329/2017 of Bidadi Police
Station, Ramanagara for the offence P/U/S 5 of Explosive
Substances Act and Sec.9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act and
Sec.286 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Section 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 and under Section 286 of IPC registered by the respondent in Crime No.329/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 06.07.2017, Inspector of police of Sulthan Bathery police station seized 100 bags of Ammonium Nitrate, each containing 15 kg, 189 cartons of Neo Gel weighing about 25 kg and 20 packets of fuse wire each containing 10 kg, which were transported in a goods lorry bearing -3- registration No.KA-19-D-5452 and apprehended the accused, lorry driver and co-driver. The driver and co- driver of another Eon car bearing registration No.TN-29- BX-7572 which was escorting the above said lorry was also seized by Kerala police in Wayanad District. On that basis, complaint came to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for accused No.2 and learned HCGP for the state.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that though there are serious allegations as against accused No.1 and that he is owner of the house from where it is alleged that these explosive substances were recovered from the possession of accused No.1, he has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 23.08.2017 passed in Crl.Mis.No.575/2015. Hence, learned counsel -4- submitted that so far as present petitioner is concerned, there is no prima facie case and the court at Kerala has also granted bail, which is in respect of the present petitioner.
5. Counsel produced a copy of the said bail order of the Kerala High Court dated 28.09.2017 passed in Bail Application No.6713/2017. This is in respect of first item and so far as the alleged offences within the jurisdiction of Sulthan Bathery police station, he submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by the court and as accused No.1 is already granted with bail, he may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition on the ground that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, they are serious in nature and they have collected the explosive substances without having any valid license or permission. Therefore, -5- by very nature of the said allegation, petitioner-accused No.2 is not entitled to be granted bail.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced and the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to accused No.1 and the bail order granted by High Court of Kerala in respect of the incident at Wayanad. Perusing these materials and when the allegation that the explosive substances were recovered from the house to which accused No.1 is the owner has already been considered by the learned Sessions Judge imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner contended that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, hence this is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner-accused No.2. -6-
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail for the above offences, subject to the following condition:
i) He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
SD/-
JUDGE dn/-