Karnataka High Court
G Basheer vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4651/2014
BETWEEN:
G BASHEER
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O H.NO.4/283
KODIMBALA HOUSE
KODIMBALA VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK
DK DISTRICT-574221
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH UPPINANGADY
POLICE STATION
DK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.134/14 OF
UPPINANGADI P.S., D.K., MANGALORE, FOR THE
2
OFFENCES P/U/S 9B(1)(b) OF EXPLOSIVE ACT, 1884, U/S
5 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBTANCES ACT, 1908 AND U/S 113 OF
EXPLOSIVE RULES, 1983.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 113 of The Explosive Rules, 1983, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.134/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. One, Shivakumar, Sub-inspector of Police lodged the complaint alleging that on 17.06.2014 at 3 4.00 a.m. when he was on duty along with his colleagues in National Highway of Mangalore-Bangalore NH-75 at Nekkilady Junction, at that time they noticed one Maruthi Car proceeding towards the said road. The complainant tried to stop the said vehicle by using barricades, three accused persons were apprehended. The complainant noticed eight boxes of explosives in the said car, which have been illegally transported by the said accused persons and said explosives were worth Rs.60,000/-. The complainant in the presence of panch witnesses seized the vehicle as well as explosives. On the basis of said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner as well as other accused persons for the alleged offences.
4. Looking to the materials placed on record, the alleged explosives have been already seized by the complainant under the seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and nothing further is to be seized from the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence. It is the contention of the learned counsel for 4 the petitioner that the said explosives were used for the purpose of blasting the stone quarry and not for any other purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied upon the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in Crl.P.No.3335/2012. I have perused the said order. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
5. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 113 of The Explosive Rules, 1983, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.134/2014, subject to the following conditions: 5
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish 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 BSR