Karnataka High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4769/2014
BETWEEN:
Santhosh Kumar,
S/o. Purushottam Nayar,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o. Kanathil House,
Pudukai Village,
Neeleshwara
Hosadurga taluk,
Kerala-671 314. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. K. Rahul Rai, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Throug Uppinangady
Police Station, D.K.,
Rep. by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.134/2014 of Uppinangadi P.S., Mangalore, for the
offences punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act
2
1884, under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908
and under Rule 113 of Explosive Rules 1983.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Rule 113 of the Explosive Rules, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.134/2014.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that Sri. K.R. Shivakumar Sub Inspector of Police of respondent Uppinangady Police Station, lodged a complaint stating that, on 17.06.2014 at 3 about 4.00 a.m., when he was on duty along with his colleagues in National High way of Mangalore-Bangalore NH 75 at Nekkilady Junction, at that time, they noticed a Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-2542 proceeding towards the said road. The complainant tried to stop said vehicle by using the barricades and the three accused persons were apprehended. They further noticed eight boxes of explosives worth Rs.60,000/- in the said vehicle, which have been illegally transported by the said accused persons. Immediately, said vehicle and explosives have been seized in the presence of Panchas. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
5. Looking to the prosecution materials, seizure mahazar was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, one Narayana Gowda and Sunil Kuamr and under the said mahazar, the alleged explosives along with a car has been seized. According to the prosecution case, seizure aspect is completed and nothing further is to be seized from the possession of the petitioner. From the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody. Learned Counsel for the petitioner 4 has produced the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.4651/2014 dated 12.8.2014 showing that accused No.1 has been granted bail. I have perused the said order wherein, this Court has considered the entire materials on record and considering the merits of the case, ultimately, bail has been granted to accused No.1.
6. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, they are one and the same against all the accused persons. When under the similar set of allegations, accused No.1 has been granted bail, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, Section 5 of the 5 Explosive Substances Act and Rule 113 of the Explosive Rules, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.134/2014, subject to following conditions:-
I. The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court. II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-