Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Sai vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 2387
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4433 OF 2021
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4425 OF 2021
CRL.P.No.4433 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA SAI
S/O P SRIRAMALU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OWNER OF SUPREME MOTORS
R/O 1-1-195, 3RD CROSS
PEDDA MUTHYALAMMA COLONY
ANANTHAPURA, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-510 051.
2. P PRUTHVINATH SAI
S/O P SRIRAMALU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O SIDDESHWARA NILAYA
RAYADURGA TOWN-515 865.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 3RD CROSS
PEDDA MUTHYALAMMA COLONY
ANANTHAPURA, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
ANTHRA PRADESH-510 051.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHIVAMOGGA RURAL P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.24/2021 OF SHIVAMOGGA RURAL P.S., SHIVAMOGGA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
286, 304, 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 9(B) OF EXPLOSIVE ACT
AND SECTION 3(a)(b), 5 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT.
CRL.P.No.4425 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
B.V.SUDHAKAR
S/O B.M.VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A SREEGANDHA, 5TH CROSS
RAVINDRA NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: NASIR ALI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.24/2021 (C.C.NO.870/2021) REGISTERED BY
SHIVAMOGGA RURAL P.S., SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 286, 304, 201 OF IPC AND
SECTION 9(B) OF EXPLOSIVE ACT AND SECTION 3(a)(b), 5 OF
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS TODAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 10 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.24/2021 of Shivamogga Rural Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), under Section 9(B) of Explosives Act and under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the Police Sub Inspector Manjunatha. The charge sheet is filed for the additional offences punishable under Section 201 of IPC and under Section 3(a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act.
2. Heard Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for Sri.Nasir Ali and Sri.S Balakrishnan, learned 4 counsel for the petitioners and Sri.H R Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4425 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.10 and he is in judicial custody since 26.01.2021. He submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The land in question where the explosion took place belongs to accused Nos.11 and 12. The only portion of the land measuring 5 acres was taken by the present petitioner for the purpose of undertaking stone crushing. No explosives are required to be used in stone crushing. The scene of occurrence is an open space and entry of explosives laden truck inside the land of the present petitioner was not within his knowledge nor with his permission. Only on the basis of the fact that the explosion has taken place in the portion of the land which was leased 5 in favour of the present petitioner cannot be a ground to falsely implicate the petitioner in the matter. There is absolutely no link between the commission of offence and the present petitioner. He was apprehended on 26.01.2021 and after due investigation, charge sheet is also filed. Even though voluminous documents are produced by the Investigating Officer, there is absolutely no prima facie material to suggest the commission of offence by the present petitioner. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 3 have sold the explosives in favour of the deceased - accused Nos.8 and 9 who in turn, were selling the same in favour of the proposed purchasers.
4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that neither Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act nor Section 304 of IPC are applicable to the facts of the case. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Bala Gangi Reddy Singam Vs State by Rural Police Station [Criminal Petition No.7246 of 2019 decided on 6 10.10.2019]. He further submitted that the petitioner being accused No.10 has no role to play. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4433 of 2021 submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. These petitioners are also innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged. They were apprehended on 05.02.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 is the licence holder to deal with the explosives and he sold the explosives in favour of deceased-accused No.8. These petitioners have no role to play in the commission of the offence. Even after investigation, nothing has been placed 7 before the Court to connect these petitioners to the offences in question. Hence, their detention in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing both the petitions by filing a detailed objection statement submitted that, as per the case made out by the prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 3 are the licence holders. Accused No.1 is the father of accused Nos.2 and
3. They were dealing with explosives violating the terms and conditions of the licence. They were transporting huge quantity of gelatin sticks in the lorry belonging to accused No.1. Accused Nos.5 and 7 are their employees who escorted the huge quantity of explosives in the truck, in the scorpio car bearing registration No.AP-02/R-9339 owned by accused No.3. Accused No.6 was the driver of 8 the said scorpio car. Both the vehicles i.e., lorry belonging to accused No.1 and the scorpio car belonging to accused No.3 found blown out in the explosion and completely destroyed. Accused Nos.5 to 9 who were at the spot found dead. Accused Nos.11 and 12 are the owners of the larger extent of the land, including the land where the incident had taken place. They had leased out the portion of the land in favour of accused No.10. Accused No.10 who is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4425 of 2021, under the guise of running stone crusher, was in fact running the stone quarry, illegally without any licence or permit and for that purpose he was purchasing the explosives illegally from accused Nos.1 to 3. When the explosives laden truck reached the land of accused No.11 which was in possession of accused No.10, high intensity explosion took place, which had shaken the entire district of Shivamogga. The vehicles and the bodies of the deceased were smashed into pieces beyond recognition and were scattered all over the area. Accused Nos.5 to 9 were found dead. Three persons were missing from the spot. Several were injured. 9 It was a massive explosion resulted in destruction of life and properties. Several houses nearby the village were either destroyed or damaged. It has created havoc and panic amongst the general public. The severity/intensity of the blast was such that, it was heard and felt even in the police station which is situated 3 km away from the scene of occurrence.
7. He further submitted that during investigation, it was found that accused Nos.1 to 3 were transporting the explosives illegally, without safety measures, in the lorry belonging to accused No.1, violating the safety rules that gelatin detonators are not supposed to be transported in a single vehicle. Thereby, they have invited the danger. The accused have thrown the safety measures to air in their greed to earn money illegally. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have sent accused Nos.5 to 7 to escort the lorry in question for delivery of explosives at the spot in the scorpio car bearing registration No.AP-02/R-9339 belonging to accused No.3. Accused Nos.8 and 9 without 10 any licence dealt with explosives and purchased the same from accused Nos.1 to 3, in turn, accused No.10 purchased the explosives from accused No.8. During search by the Investigating Officer, 63 electrical detonators, 175 electrical detonators with ammonium Nitrate explosive items were found stored by accused No.10 in the shed belonging to him.
8. Thus, it is contended that the accused have acted rashly and negligently in handling and transporting the explosives knowing fully well that the said act would endanger the human life. Either accused Nos.2 and 3 or accused No.10 who are the petitioners before this Court cannot plead ignorance or innocence, in view of the incriminating materials that were collected by the prosecution. Looking to the seriousness of the offence, these petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of both the petitions. 11
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners are
entitled for grant of bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
10. The materials on record discloses the seriousness of offences committed by the accused in general and the petitioners in particular. Specific allegations are made against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they are the licence holders. Even though, learned counsel contended that it is only accused No.1 who is the licence holder, it will not absolve accused Nos.2 and 3 from their responsibility as it is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 being the sons of accused No.1 were carrying on the business in explosives on behalf of accused No.1. This contention is supported 12 from the fact that the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 17/D-6475 belonging to accused No.1 was found laden with huge quantity of explosives which was escorted by the scorpio car bearing registration No.AP-02/R-9339 owned by accused No.3. It is specifically contended that accused Nos.5 and 7 are the employees of accused Nos.1 to 3 and thus they were in the scorpio car in question and they have died at the spot.
11. Even though it is tried to be projected as if accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and have not played any role in causing the incident, prima facie materials placed before the Court do not suggest so. The contention of the prosecution that huge quantity of explosives were illegally transported so rashly and negligently, with full knowledge that it will endanger the human life is supported by the fact that the scorpio car belonging to accused No.3 was escorting the lorry in question. The contention of the prosecution that it was with an intention to see that the lorry with the explosives crosses various check post 13 appears to be probable at this stage. The very nature of the explosion and its effect show cases the severity with which explosion had taken place. It has shooked the conscious of the citizens who are residing at nearby places. Simply because accused No.5 to 9 died at the spot, it cannot be concluded that accused have never foreseen the danger nor they were having knowledge that their act would endanger the human life. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3.
12. The contention of the learned senior counsel for accused No.10 that, he is only running a stone crusher and had never used explosives also cannot be accepted at this stage as the explosion had taken place in the spot which was in the possession of this accused. Moreover, as per the case made out by the prosecution huge quantity of electrical detonators with ammonium Nitrate were recovered from the shed belonging to this accused. The contention of the learned senior counsel that the 14 explosives were supposed to be delivered to accused Nos.8 or 9 and thereafter it was supposed to be purchased by accused No.10, therefore, even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner-accused No.10 had not purchased the explosives yet and he cannot be held responsible, is too technical argument to be accepted. The contention of the prosecution regarding commission of the offence by accused No.10 is probablised from the fact that the explosion had taken place in the land belonging to the petitioner-accused No.10, which is also supported by the seizure of the large quantity of incriminating materials from his possession. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by all the petitioners that they are innocent and they have no role to play in the incident in question, cannot be accepted at this stage.
13. The gravity of the explosion and its after effects are devastating. Several persons have lost their lives, several were injured and some are found missing. It is stated that several properties got damaged and more 15 than that, the residents of not only the village, but from the nearby places have felt danger to their life and properties. Voluminous documents placed by the Investigating Officer stares at these petitioners and others, which cannot be ignored at this stage. The facts and circumstances discloses that all these accused were so negligent and were handling the explosives rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life, knowing fully well about its consequences. They have never took any precautions which are required to be taken. They have thrown all the safety measures which is mandated under law while handling the explosives and transporting it from one place to another. When the society in general has felt the heat of the offence committed by the accused collectively, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail, as it will definitely send a wrong signal to the civilized society. The conduct of the petitioners and other accused prima facie shows that they have scant respect to the law and they have prepared to do anything in their greed for 16 money. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners in both the cases are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in 'Negative'. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-