Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Criminal Petition No.3037 of 2021 is filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.3200 of 2021 is filed by Raghavendra Reddy-accused No.2 and Manjunatha Reddy-accused No.16 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') for granting regular bail in Crime No.34 of 2021 registered by Gudibande Police Station, Chickballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, and under Sections 304 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').

2. Criminal Petition No.3417 of 2021 is also filed by G.S. Nagaraj-accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.25 of 2021 registered by Gudibande Police Station, Chickballapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Sections 5A and 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, and under Sections 286 and 336 of the IPC.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

10. Looking to the allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 are the active partners of the quarry and accused No.16 is the Contractor and there is no written contract. Though accused No.19, co-contractor, granted bail by the Sessions Judge that itself cannot a ground to grant bail to accused No.16. Accused No.16 is the cause for excavation work at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. Though accused Nos.8 to 13 have lost their lives, they are entitled for compensation as per the Committee Report. The alleged offences are punishable under Section 304 of the IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel, submits that the alleged offences attract only Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC and he further argued that Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, will not attract as there is no intention or motive. The fact remains that the Police registered the case against accused No.3 and others in Crime No.25 of 2021 on 7-2-2021 itself. If the Police would have taken the matter seriously and if the petitioners were arrested on 7-2-2021 itself, the blast would have avoided and would not have caused loss of six lives. Though the Police registered the case, but kept quite. Accused Nos.1 and 2, being partners, gave instructions to accused No.8, Manager, to shift the explosives material during night secretly in order to avoid arrest and seizure by the Police. While shifting, gelatin sticks and explosive material were exploded and six persons died on the spot. The Government has taken serious action after the blast. Therefore, accused persons were surrendered before the Police. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are held responsible for the incident and misguided their employees, which resulted in death of six persons. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for bail.