Karnataka High Court
G S Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3037 OF 2021
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3200 OF 2021
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3417 OF 2021
IN CRL.P. NO.3037/2021:
BETWEEN:
G.S. NAGARAJ
S/O. MR. SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF NO.16B,
CHIKKATHAMANAHALLI,
BEECHAGANAHALLI,
GRAM PANCHAYATH,
GUDDEBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209.
ALSO RESIDING AT
NO.26'A', I MAIN, M.M.ROAD,
BESIDE BESCOM OFFICE,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
2
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUDDEBANDE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.34 OF 2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE
STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 5 AND 6 OF THE EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, SECTION 9B OF THE EXPLOSIVE ACT AND
SECTIONS 286 AND 304 OF THE IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.3200/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
S/O. P. RAMALINGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SHOWN AS PROPRIETOR OF
BHRAMARAVASINI CRUSHER UNIT,
HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.
RESIDING AT NO.204, VISHWA PRAKRUTHI HAVELI,
1ST CROSS, SNEHA NAGAR,
AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYTARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
3
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
NARASIMHAPALLI VILLAGE,
GORANTLA MANDAL,
A.P.
2. SHIVA REDDY @ P. VENKATASHIVA REDDY
S/O. P. RAMALINGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SHOWN AS BHRAMARAVASINI CRUSHER,
SLEEPING PARTNER AND AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT NARASIMHAPALLI VILLAGE,
GORANTLA MANDAL,
ANANTHAPUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 231.
3. PRAVEEN
S/O. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
SHOWN AS MECHANIC OF
BHRAMARAVASINI CRUSHER UNIT,
RESIDING AT HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561 209.
4. MANJUNATHA REDDY
S/O. PEDDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT P-2, SRINIDHI APARTMENT,
NEAR PRESIDENCY COLLEGE,
KEMPAPURA, HEBBALA,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
PARTHASARATHI NAGARA,
DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 671.
4
5. D.V. RAVINDRA
S/O. VENKATAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
SLEEPING PARTNER OF
SHIRDI SAI AGGREGATE QUARRY,
RESIDING AT DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADV. &
PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 5 ARE DELETED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 24-6-2021)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUDIBANDE POLICE, GUDIBANDE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.34 OF 2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE
STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 5 AND 6 OF THE EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, SECTION 9B OF THE EXPLOSIVE ACT AND
SECTIONS 286 AND 304 OF THE IPC.
5
IN CRL.P. NO.3417/2021
BETWEEN:
G.S. NAGARAJ
S/O. MR. SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF NO.16B,
CHIKKATHAMANAHALLI,
BEECHAGANAHALLI,
GRAM PANCHAYATH,
GUDDEBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 209.
ALSO RESIDING AT
NO.26 'A', I MAIN, M.M. ROAD,
BESIDE BESCOM OFFICE,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUDDEBANDE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
***
6
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.25 OF 2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE
STATION, CHICKBALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF THE EXPLOSIVE
SUBSTANCES ACT, SECTIONS 5A AND 9B OF THE EXPLOSIVE
ACT AND SECTIONS 286 AND 336 OF THE IPC.
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.3037 OF 2021 AND 3417 OF
2021 HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
17-6-2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3200 OF 2021 HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24-6-2021 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.3037 of 2021 is filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2021 is filed by Raghavendra Reddy-accused No.2 and Manjunatha Reddy-accused No.16 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') for granting regular bail in Crime No.34 of 2021 registered by Gudibande Police Station, Chickballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 7 1884, and under Sections 304 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Criminal Petition No.3417 of 2021 is also filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.25 of 2021 registered by Gudibande Police Station, Chickballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Sections 5A and 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, and under Sections 286 and 336 of the IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.25 of 2021 is that, a suo motu case is registered by the respondent-Police on the ground that on 7-2-2021 at 4:00 p.m., the Police Inspector was on patrolling duty, 8 at that time, he received information about blasting in stone quarry without any permit or licence unauthorisedly by means of explosives. He conducted raid on M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates (Stone Quarry) along with panch witnesses and found accused No.1 installing explosives in 15 holes in area of 15 x 15 at the northern part of land in Survey No.24 measuring 3 acre 10 guntas and on enquiry, he voluntarily stated that the explosives were supplied by Gangoji Rao and not used the vehicles for supplying explosives. Meanwhile, the Police Inspector removed the wires from 14 holes weighing 125 grams, 14 gelatin gel tubes 6 x 1½ along with 17 electric detonator wires and one bundle wire used for connecting the explosives with the assistant of Veda Kumar, mining mate. The Police Inspector also noticed 7 holes measuring 15 feet in depth and about 6 inches in width at the western part of that land, and he further noticed marks of extracting stones by using 9 explosives. Mining operation in Chickballapura District has been prohibited by the order of the Government, but the accused persons undertook stone quarry in violation of the Government order. Therefore, case has been registered against the petitioner and his name is shown as accused No.3. Further, the Police have stated that the petitioner is also involved in Crime No.34 of 2021 regarding blasting of the explosives and causing death of six persons.
5. In Crime No.34 of 2021, the respondent-Police registered a suo motu case against the petitioners and others alleging that the petitioners and other five partners are said to have running quarry under the name and style of M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates and obtained licence from the Government for quarrying on 28-11-2019. On 23-2-2021 at about 12:45 a.m., the Police Inspector received telephone call from the 10 residents of Hirenagavalli Village that they heard huge sound of blast from site of Shree Bhramaravasini Crushers. The Police went to the spot immediately and noticed some person sitting in Tata Ace vehicle and was screaming in pain. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Riyaz, Driver (accused No.7). Riyaz further disclosed that on 23-2-2021 at about 12:00 a.m., Uma Mahesh, Manager (accused No.8) of the quarry, asked him to bring the Tata Ace goods vehicle stating that the owners/partners have asked the said Manager to destroy all the explosives stored at M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates. Accordingly, Riyaz along with accused Nos.8 to 12 went in Tata Ace goods vehicle and accused No.13 followed the said Tata Ace goods vehicle on his motorcycle. When they were at a distance of 200 meters from the crusher plant, the Manager and the Supervisor were waiting with explosives packed in gunny bags and they loaded the said gunny bags with explosives on to 11 the vehicle and started proceedings towards Jonnalakunte Forest. He further stated that when they covered a distance of ½ km., he was asked to stop the vehicle and accused Nos.8 to 13 unloaded the gunny bags with explosives and took it to a distance of 200 meters. At the same time, accused No.13 was following them on his motorcycle. At that time, the explosives exploded and accused Nos.8 to 13 died on the spot. On the information received, the Police registered a case. On 25-2-2021, accused No.1 surrendered before the Police and was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2 is another partner of the said firm. Accused No.16 is a Contractor, who obtained permission from accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of quarrying. After the incident, the Police have arrested accused Nos.2 and 16 and remanded them to judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Though the names of accused 12 Nos.4 and 17 have been shown in the F.I.R., but their names have been deleted in the charge-sheet. Since the Police have not filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.4 and 17, their names have been deleted from the cause-title in Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2021.
6. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for accused No.1 in Crime No.34 of 2021 and accused No.3 in Crime No.25 of 2021, has contended that the petitioner is one of the partners of M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates. The said firm had obtained licence from Government on 28-11-2019 and the quarry lease is valid for a period of 20 years. The Police registered a complaint in Crime No.25 of 2021 on the basis that the workers were trying to remove explosives, at that time, blast occurred and accused Nos.8 to 13 died on the spot and even accused Nos.8 to 13 are made as accused. He further contended that though the licence is 13 obtained by accused Nos.1 and 2, but accused Nos.14 and 17 given the explanation of the rocks to accused Nos.16 and 19 by oral agreement and they were excavating the rock. Accused No.21 is licence holder and accused Nos.15 and 18 are workers working under accused Nos.16 and 19 and they have purchased the explosives from accused No.20. Accused Nos.15, 18 and 21 were conducting blast work. Of course, accused Nos.1 and 2 being the partners of the said firm is liable, but the excavation work was done by accused Nos.16 and 19 through its workers. The Trial Court has granted bail to accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 15, 18, 19 and 21, even though accused No.19 was engaged in excavating work. Accused Nos.8 to 13 are dead in the blast. Accused Nos.15 and 18 purchased explosives from accused No.20 have also been granted bail. The presence of the petitioner may not be required for any investigation. The alleged offences under the Explosives 14 Act though non-baiable, but they are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Section 304 of the IPC is punishable with 10 years, or fine, or with both. There is no intention for causing death of accused Nos.8 to 13 and it is purely on negligence by the workers. Section 9 of the Explosives Act, 1884, would not attract as there is no intention to cause any injury or endanger to the lives, but they stored the explosives used for blasting the quarry. The petitioner is in custody for nearly four months and is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petitions.
7. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 16, has contended that there is no intention or motive to commit any death by blast. Accused No.19, who is having similar allegation, has been granted bail. Names of accused Nos.4 and 17 were 15 deleted and accused No.5 has been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The allegations against accused Nos.2 and 16 are similar to that of other accused persons. Therefore, on the ground of parity, accused Nos.2 and 16 are also entitled for bail. He further contended that though charge-sheet is filed, there is no documentary proof that accused Nos.8 to 13 were working under the firm. C.W.56-G.S.Manjunath, who said to be an eyewitness and as per his statement, accused No.1 gave instructions to accused No.8 prior to blast, but has not intimated to the Police. There is delay in recording the statement. C.W.57-Sharanya, wife of accused No.16, states only about arrest of her husband. If the statements of C.Ws.58 and 60 are to be believed, there should be gelatin sticks to be seized by the Police in Crime No.25 of 2021. However, there were no gelatin sticks at all to be illegally disposed off on 23-2-2021. C.Ws.58 and 60 are the suppliers, who supplied 16 explosives illegally to the quarry. No material is placed to show that explosives were illegally kept by accused No.15. Charge-sheet does not reveal the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 16. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the petitions and contended that the accused persons stored the explosive substances illegally and the case was registered in Crime No.25 of 2021. In spite of the same, the petitioners engaged in conducting quarry business which resulted in death of six persons, including the Manager and the Supervisor, apart from workers. Though some of the accused are released on bail by the Sessions Judge that itself cannot be a ground to grant bail to the petitioners. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 16 are the main accused and there is prima-facie material placed on record to show that they 17 have committed the offences both under the Explosives Act, 1884, as well as under the IPC. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
9. Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, it reveals that the respondent-Police previously registered a case against the petitioners and others in Crime No.25 of 2021 on 7-2-2021 and the Police Inspector removed the wires from 14 holes weighing 125 grams, 14 gelatin gel tubes 6 x 1½ along with 17 electric detonator wires and one bundle wire used for connecting the explosives with the assistant of Veda Kumar, mining mate. Until the blast occurred on 23-2-2021, the Police have not chosen to arrest any of the accused persons. On 23-2-2021, when accused Nos.8 to 13 carrying loads of explosives in gunny bags, explosives were blasted. After report of the blast by the Villagers, the Police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 18 2021 against the petitioners and others. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to be partners of the quarry and accused Nos.16 and 19 are the Contractors engaged by accused Nos.1 and 2 for excavation of stones and other accused persons are workers working under them. Accused Nos.15 and 18 purchased the explosives from accused No.20. After blast and death of accused Nos.8 to 13, the Police arrested some of the accused persons and it is revealed that accused No.1 in Crime No.34 of 2021 surrendered before the Police on 25-2-2021. It is seen from the record that the Government of Karnataka granted quarry lease/licence dated 28-11-2019 in the name of M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates to accused Nos.1 and 2 and other partners for quarry business. Charge- sheet material reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 prohibiting the order of the Government, conducted quarry work illegally and in spite of registering the case by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.25 of 2021 on 19 7-2-2021 for keeping the explosives and gelatin sticks, explosives were blasted on 23-2-2021 and the case was registered in Crime No.34 of 2021 for death of six persons. It is revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 have secretly issued explosives material to accused No.8 and accused No.8 called accused No.7 to bring Tata Ace goods vehicle stating that owners have asked him to destroy all the explosives material stored. Accordingly, accused No.7 brought the goods vehicle and accused Nos.8 to 12 traveled in the said vehicle and accused No.13 followed the vehicle in his motorcycle and at about 200 meters away, gelatin and explosives were blasted. Due to which, accused No.8 to 13 died on the spot and their bodies were scattered about 25 meters on the place of the blast. The Police have filed abated charge-sheet against accused Nos.8 to 13. Though the Sessions Judge granted bail to accused No.19 and anticipatory bail to one of the accused, who is a sleeping 20 partner, that itself cannot be a ground to grant bail. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the main accused. As per the partnership agreement, in Clause-7, it is stated that first partner and second partner shall be working partners and shall be responsible for doing of all acts arising out of the partnership deed and shall manage day-to-day affairs of the firm, which reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to be active partners holding 65% of share of the firm and remaining five partners are said to be sleeping partners having 5% of share. That apart, accused Nos.1 and 2 gave contract to accused No.16 for excavation and while shifting the explosives material, the blast occurred on 23-2-2021. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Green Tribunal, the Joint Committee has furnished a Report. At Chapter 4 of the Report, it has clearly stated that the explosive material and its accessories were illegally possessed by M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates, quarry and were hidden 21 near the bushes of labourers shed in Hirenagavalli Village located at a distance of 1.5 km from the blast site and about 700 meters from the said firm. Further, it has stated that the dead bodies were found scattered within a radius of 25 meters. Accused No.7, Driver of the goods vehicle, drove the vehicle in which unauthorisedly/illegally possessed explosives were being carried and he parked the vehicle at a distance of about 30 meters away from the blast site. Therefore, he suffered minor injuries. At Chapter 10 of the Report- Concluding Remarks, the Joint Committee submits that the main cause of the blast is due to illegal possession and inappropriate handling of the explosive material by unauthorised persons, who were working in M/s. Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP (Stone Crusher) under the verbal instructions of owners of M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates (Stone quarry) and Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP in Hirenagavalli Village. The Joint 22 Committee ascertains the fact that the blast has occurred due to mere negligence and ignorance of the employees of Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP and accused Nos.1 and 2, who are partners of M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates. Further, it has stated that M/s. Shirdi Sai Aggregates (Stone Quarry) and Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP (Stone Crusher) have not taken due diligence and responsibility in handling the explosives and merely misguided the employees. Looking to the Joint Committee Report headed by Deputy Commissioner of Chikkaballapura, Environmental Officer of KSPCB, Deputy Director of DGMS, Director of Department of Mines and Geology, Deputy Controller of Explosives and two Nodal Officers, it reveals that they have not witnessed any damage to flora, fauna, livestock except loss of lives of six persons. 23
10. Looking to the allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 are the active partners of the quarry and accused No.16 is the Contractor and there is no written contract. Though accused No.19, co-contractor, granted bail by the Sessions Judge that itself cannot a ground to grant bail to accused No.16. Accused No.16 is the cause for excavation work at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Though accused Nos.8 to 13 have lost their lives, they are entitled for compensation as per the Committee Report. The alleged offences are punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel, submits that the alleged offences attract only Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC and he further argued that Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, will not attract as there is no intention or motive. The fact remains that the Police 24 registered the case against accused No.3 and others in Crime No.25 of 2021 on 7-2-2021 itself. If the Police would have taken the matter seriously and if the petitioners were arrested on 7-2-2021 itself, the blast would have avoided and would not have caused loss of six lives. Though the Police registered the case, but kept quite. Accused Nos.1 and 2, being partners, gave instructions to accused No.8, Manager, to shift the explosives material during night secretly in order to avoid arrest and seizure by the Police. While shifting, gelatin sticks and explosive material were exploded and six persons died on the spot. The Government has taken serious action after the blast. Therefore, accused persons were surrendered before the Police. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are held responsible for the incident and misguided their employees, which resulted in death of 25 six persons. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for bail.
11. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.5, submits that accused No.5 has been granted bail by the Sessions Judge and hence, the petition has become infructuous as against him.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.3037 of 2021 filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.1, Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2021 filed by Raghavendra Reddy- accused No.2 and Manjunatha Reddy-accused No.16 and Criminal Petition No.3417 of 2021 filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.3 are dismissed.
Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2021 filed by Praveen-accused No.5 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk