Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 610 (KAR)

AJITH KAMATH v. STATE BY VITTLA POLICE STATION

2010-05-06

JAWAD RAHIM

body2010
ORDER Petitioners who are ranked as accused 6, 7 and 8 respectively in Cr. (FIR) No. 70 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 as also Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seek issuance of direction under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the Investigating Officer in-charge of Cri. No. 70 of 2010 to release them in the event of their arrest. 2. The prosecution was notified and in response to which the learned State Public Prosecutor, Sri Nawaz is present and opposes the petition vehemently. 3. The prosecution case is based on the report of Savithruthej P.D., Sub-Inspector of Police, Vittal Police Station. It is alleged that on 16-4-2010 at 5.30 a.m. on receipt of credible information he along with his staff visited the block stone quarry of one Moideen Thousif, who is ranked as accused 1 situated at Arthadka, Kamba Village. On inspection, he noticed illegal storage of explosive substance. The raid was recorded in a mahazar authenticated by panch witnesses. Further enquiry revealed the names of petitioners as lessees of the quarry in question. Besides, he learnt that accused 1 was the actual owner and other accused were responsible for such storage. On that basis FIR is registered and he is in pursuit of the petitioners.. Apprehending their arrest and consequent harassment that they may face, the petitioners seek the relief, which is seriously opposed. 4. Though the Additional State Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed petition pointing out to the storage of explosive substance on the property leased by the petitioners called Block Stone Quarry, yet the allegation of misuse of explosive substance or criminality in their conduct is conspicuous by its absence. The main allegation is storage of explosives without licence. This is a question of fact to be enquired into. 5. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am satisfied that the contention of the petitioners that they were lessees of the quarry and they had leased out and delivered physical possession to others on 10-11-2009 and have no subsisting interest needs to be taken into consideration. 6. 5. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am satisfied that the contention of the petitioners that they were lessees of the quarry and they had leased out and delivered physical possession to others on 10-11-2009 and have no subsisting interest needs to be taken into consideration. 6. Being of this view, I am satisfied that petitioners have made out a cases to grant the relief sought for subject to appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, the following order: 7. The petition is allowed and the petitioners are subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer in-charge of the investigation in Crime No. 70 of 2010 within two weeks from now. On their appearance, the Investigating Officer may arrest them, but release them on bail on their furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one solvent surety for the likes urn to his satisfaction; (ii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and subject themselves to interrogation; (iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution material or prevail upon witness by any means; and (iv) Within three weeks after arrest and release, they shall seek for regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate, failing which, the benefit of this order shall be revoked.