Mr Abdul Gafoor vs The State Through The on 20 June, 2017

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Abdul Gafoor vs The State Through The on 20 June, 2017

Bench: Rathnakala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE 2017

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3994/2017

BETWEEN :

Mr.Abdul Gafoor,
Aged 45 years,
Son of Late K.Ibrahim,
Residing at Nooji House,
Kambalabettu, Vittal Madnoor,
Village and Post, Bantwal Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District - 575 175.     ...PETITIONER

     (By Sri.P.P.Hegde, Adv.)

AND :

The State - Through the
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Vittal Police Station,
Vittal, Bantwal Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District - 575 175
(Represented by the State)              ...RESPONDENT

     (By Sri.S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP)
                       . . . .

      This criminal petition is filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.56/2017 of Vittal Police
Station, Bantwal Taluk for the offence punishable under
Sections 386, 304(A), 308, 304 of IPC and Section 9(B) of
Explosive Act.
                              -2-




     This criminal petition coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in respect of Crime No.56/2017 registered by the respondent - Police on the allegation of offences punishable under Sections 286, 304(A) of IPC and Section 9B of the Explosives Act the complaint registered on the explosion that occurred on 20.03.2017 at Nooji Kambalabettu, Vittal Mudnoor Village, Bantwal Taluk.

2. The allegation is that the petitioner's brother Abdul Shukoor has obtained the license to manufacture crackers and explosives. The petitioner by violating the conditions of the licence had indulged in manufacture of the explosives and hence there was explosion resulting in the death of two of the employees and injury to others etc. The offences though are bailable, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has sought to include Sections 304 & 308 of IPC that has made the petitioner to apprehend his arrest.

-3-

3. Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while seeking permission to incorporate Sections 304 and 308 of IPC, the Investigating Officer alleges that the manufacturing process was carried at the residential area but as per the spot mahazar itself, it was carried on in the Revenue land.

4. In the light of the above submission, keeping all the contentions open, there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period.

5. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall surrender before the concerned Court and move for grant of bail within the above said period.

(ii) In the event of his arrest within the above said period, in respect of the above case, he shall be released on bail on his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum.

-4-

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/17 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court