Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Asif K vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5065/2014
BETWEEN:
Mohammad Asif. K,
S/o. Ismail,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at H.No.3/140,
Kodange House,
Vittal Padnoor Village,
Bantwala Taluk,
D.K. District-574 221. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Rahul Rai, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Uppinangady Police Station. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr. No.134/2014 of Uppinangadi P.S., D.K., Mangalore,
for the offences P/U/S 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act 1884,
under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and
under Section 113 of Explosive Rules 1983.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act 1884, under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Section 113 of Explosive Substances Rules 1983 registered in respondent-police station Crime No.134/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all other materials produced along with the petition.
3
4. As per the complaint averments, the complainant one Shivakumar was on patrolling duty at about 11 hours on 16.6.2014 and when the respondent- police were checking the vehicle at that time, they found three persons in a car in a suspicious conduct. Immediately, complainant enquired those persons and found that they possessed explosives. When enquired with them as to whether they are having any license or permit for transporting explosives they told that they do not possess any such permission or license with them. Hence, in the presence of panch witnesses, the complainant seized the explosive items from their possession and on the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the alleged offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 have been already granted bail by the order of this Court and he has produced the copies of the said bail order.
4
6. I have perused the bail orders passed by this Court in respect of accused Nos.1 and 3. Looking to the complaint averments, the allegations are one and the same against all the accused persons and it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest, petitioner is in custody. Seizure has been already completed and for the present, nothing further is to be seized from the possession of the petitioner herein.
7. Hence, petition is allowed on the ground of parity. Petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act 1884, under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under Section 113 of Explosive Substances Rules 1983 registered in respondent-police station Crime No.134/2014, subject to following conditions:-
5
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp