S Rathnavelu vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S Rathnavelu vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2017

Bench: R.B Budihal

                         1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.8002/2017

BETWEEN

1. S RATHNAVELU
S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

2. S. MURTHY
S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

3. S. MURUGASWAMY
S/O SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
NAGARAKUNDAL,
MALLALPURAM, INDUR,
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU-636 803.
                                    ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL, ADVOCATE
      a/w. Sri.THONTADHARYA R K, ADVOCATE)


AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BIDADI POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA RURAL CIRLCE,
                               2



RAMANGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CR.NO.329/2017 OF BIDADI POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 286 OF IPC AND SEC. 9B(1)(b) OF EXPLOSIVE ACT
AND SEC. 5(a) OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT.

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


                           ORDER

This is a petition filed by Petitioners-Accused Nos.3 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1984 and Section 286 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.329/2017. 3

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners..- Accused Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other material on record. I have also perused the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners.

4. Looking to the prosecution material, firstly, case came to be registered against one S.Rathnavelu as Accused No.1 and S.Murthy as Accused No.2. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, there is no mention either in the complaint or in the F.I.R about their names and their involvement in committing the alleged offences. Looking to the prosecution material, during investigation, i.e., on 29.08.2017, when the I.O continued the investigation and interrogated the accused persons, recorded their voluntary statements and during the course of such interrogation, the arrested accused took the names of these petitioners stating 4 that they have purchased the explosives from these three persons. Except this, there is no other material to show the involvement of these three accused persons in the alleged offences.

5. Apart from that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are having licence to deal with the explosives. The licence is dated 20.03.2014. The next document is with regard to the terms under which they are permitted to deal with the explosives. Therefore, these documents prima facie go to show that the present petitioners are having licence to deal with the explosives. It is contended that the petitioners are not involved in committing the alleged offences and they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on them.

6. Hence, the petition is allowed. The respondent- police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1984 and Section 286 of IPC 5 registered in respondent-Police Station in Crime No.329/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and have to furnish one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to co-operate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioners shall 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 bnv*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court