Karnataka High Court
Munireddy vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9727/2017
BETWEEN:
Munireddy
S/o Munivenkatarayappa
Aged about 48 years
R/o Gubalahalli village
Ambajidurga Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk
Chikkaballapura Dist.-563 125 ... Petitioner
(By Sri Shankarappa, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented by Sub Inspector
Chintamani Rural Police ... Respondent
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
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 Crime No.464/2017 of Chintamani
Rural Police Station, Chickballapura District for the
offence punishable under Sections 286, 336, 427, 337
of IPC and Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
2
This criminal petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 286, 336, 427, 337 of IPC and Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.464/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as alleged in the complaint that on 05.10.2017, the complainant appeared before the respondent police and filed a written complaint alleging that the houses of the accused and one Narayanaswamy situated side by side. On 03.10.2017 at about 5.00pm, the accused brought one Tractor to blast a rock by using compressor without any necessary safeguards and out of said blasting the son of the complainant and wife of the accused 3 sustained head injury. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner and other unknown persons. On the basis of the same, case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Looking to the materials they go to show that, as there was rock and in order to blast and make it clear for forming the road, the blast alleged to have been taken place and in that process, the son of the complainant as well as the wife of the accused said to have sustained injuries.
4. During the course of hearing of the petition, both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that the injured have already been discharged from the hospital after taking treatment. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The alleged offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 4 though non bailable in nature, it is also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court.
Hence, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 286, 336, 427, 337 of IPC and Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 registered in respondent police station in Crime No.464/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.5
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further investigation.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMV