Sri Arivazhagan Palanisamy vs State By on 9 December, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Arivazhagan Palanisamy vs State By on 9 December, 2021

Bench: K.Natarajan

                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.8437/2021

BETWEEN

SRI ARIVAZHAGAN PALANISAMY
S/O PALANISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.5/133 A METTUKADAI S
PAPPARAPATTY P O
PAPPARAPATTI ATTAYAMPATTI
SALEM
STATE OF TAMIL NADU -567 121.                ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GANESH G.G., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY NANDAGUDI P S
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560091                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.148/2021 REGISTERED BY NANDAGUDI
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 9(B)(1)(b) OF EXPLOSIVE ACT
AND SECTION 5 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE AMENDMENT ACT,
2001 READ WITH SECTION 10(3) OF EXPLOSIVE RULED.
                                       2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                 ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.148/2021 registered by Nandagudi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Amendment Act, 2001 read with Rule 10(3) of Explosive Rules.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the suo moto complaint of one Shankarappa, PSI, a case was regitered by the police. It is stated in the complaint that, on the credible information, the complainant intercepted the goods vehicle bearing No.TN-90-F-7137. On verifying the driver of the vehicle (accused No.2), he was said to 3 have transporting the aluminum super detonators and others explosive substances in the vehicle. On verifying the bill, it contained the vehicle number as TN-19-B-8575. The said vehicle was different from the vehicle, which was mentioned in the bill. Accordingly, the case came to be registered against accused No.2 and he was arrested. Upon the voluntary statement of accused No.2, the petitioner is made as accused No.1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the hands of the Police approached the Sessions Judge for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it reveals that the vehicle was seized by the complainant on the ground that the vehicle registration number mentioned in the bill was different from the vehicle number that was carrying explosives. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the licence issued by the concerned Authority wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the licence 4 holder. The complainant has intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-90-F-7137 and as per the contention of the learned counsel, the police have apprehended the same vehicle and the petitioner is the licence holder and transporting the explosives in the said vehicle. It was identified and registered under the Act. different number of the vehicle is mentioned in the bill cannot be a ground for rejecting the petition. Though the bill may contain the different number of the vehicle for transporting the explosives, but the petitioner is the licence holder. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner is released on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of prosecution. Hence, the following:

ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.148/2021 registered by Nandagudi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 5 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Amendment Act, 2001 read with Rule 10(3) of Explosive Rules, subject to the following conditions;

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(iii) Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court