S.Chandramouli vs State By Mandya Rural Police on 2 July, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S.Chandramouli vs State By Mandya Rural Police on 2 July, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                              1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2020

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.2977 OF 2020

BETWEEN :

S. CHANDRAMOULI
S/O LATE B. SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT #19, SUMUKHA
1ST CROSS, BANDIGOWDA LAYOUT
MANDYA-571 401                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]


AND :

STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE
MANDYA
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]


        THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.107/2020 OF MANDYA RURAL
P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 285 OF IPC AND
SEC.3,5 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT.


        THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                 2


                           ORDER

This petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed seeking anticipatory bail by accused No.1 in FIR No.107/2020, registered in Mandya Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9B of Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 285 of IPC.

2. Police Sub Inspector, Mandya Rural District, submitted a report stating inter alia that whilst he was on his routine rounds, based on information received by an informer, he went to Survey No.81/1 of Ragimuddanahalli Village and found that accused were attempting to conduct blast in a quarry illegally. Upon seeing the police, accused ran way from the spot and police were unable to apprehend them. The police recovered an earth moving equipment of Hitachi make, a plastic bag and three big covers containing explosives. The plastic bag contained 35 detonators and 603 gelatins. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR has been registered.

3. Heard Shri Raju C.N., learned advocate for petitioner and Shri Renukaradhya R.D., learned HCGP for the State.

4. Shri Raju, submitted that petitioner is husband of licence holder and is in no way connected with the case. He has been falsely implicated. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.

5. Learned HCGP argued opposing the petition.

6. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. Perusal of report submitted by the Police Sub Inspector shows that he went to the spot based on source information. Though he made attempts, he was not able to apprehend the accused. It is not disputed that petitioner's wife is the dealer in explosives. But FIR has been registered against petitioner and others. The police have seized the earth moving equipment and some explosives. Keeping in view the facts and 4 circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that petitioner's wife is the licence holder, in the opinion of this Court, it would be just appropriate to allow this petition. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 10.07.2020, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or jurisdictional Magistrate;

      (ii)     Petitioner shall join investigation
               and     fully    cooperate          with     the
               investigating       officer    and     appear
               before him as and when called
               upon;
      (iii)    Petitioner          shall      mark          his

attendance before the jurisdictional Police on third Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. & 5 12.00 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave Mandya District, without prior permission of jurisdictional Magistrate till charge sheet is filed;

(v) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence;

(vi) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or Investigating Officer;

(vii) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and

(viii) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

Petition allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court