Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 492 (KAR)

Muniswamy Naik v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-23

V SRISHANANDA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Gopala Krishna B.N., learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: 'Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner (accused No.2) in Crime No.400/2022 against the petitioner and another accused for the offences punishable under Section 285, 286, 337, 427 of IPC, under Section 9(b)(1)(b) of Explosive Act and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act registered in respondent Police i.e., Tavarekere Police and pending on the file of the Hon'ble 2nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi, pending disposal of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.' 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by one Shivaraja S/o Revanna, a Government official working in the Electricity Department, Tavarakere Police registered a case in Crime No.400/2022 on 24.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 285, 286, 337, 427 of IPC, under Section 9B(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that there was an explosion in the agricultural land and a boulder hit the electrical wire and there was a snap of electricity and there is a loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the Electricity Department. After registering the case, police investigated the matter inter alia arrested the present petitioner. 5. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he has supplied the gelatin sticks and wigs to the second accused who in-turn used the same for blasting the rock situated in his land resulting in the incident. 6. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order for grant of bail is turned down by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara by order dated 13.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No.1215/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition also pressed into service the ground of parity, as this Court has granted bail to the co-accused by a considerable order. 8. Learned HCGP, however, opposes the grant of bail by filing written objections stating that the grant of bail order to the co-accused would not act as a parity in this case. 8. Learned HCGP, however, opposes the grant of bail by filing written objections stating that the grant of bail order to the co-accused would not act as a parity in this case. It is this petitioner who threw the gelatin sticks and supplied the same to the second accused and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 9. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of rival contentions of the parties. 10. On such perusal of the material, it is seen that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail taking into account the objections of the prosecution. 11. Even though there is a slight variation in the role assigned to the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. 12. Accordingly, pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed; (ii) The accused/petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner; (iv) The accused/petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Ramanagara District without prior permission; (v) The accused/petitioner shall attend the court regularly; (vi) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences. Violation of any one of the above conditions would entitle the prosecution for seeking cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly.