NagarajA. S/O Yadakuntappa, Vs. the State of Karnataka by Rural Police, ShimogA. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr.justice v.jagannathan, j.] this crl.p filed u/s.438 cr.p.c praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in cr.no.363/10 of shimoga rural p.s.. which is regd., for the offences p/u/s 286. 338. 304(a) of the ipc and s.3 & 4 of explosive substances act 1908 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned addl. s.p.p for the respondent state in respect of the anticipatory bail petition filed.2. petitioner's counsel submits that, though the case is registered u/s 286. 338. 304-a of ipc r/w sections 3 and 4 of the explosive substances act, following the blasting of the rock on 10.10.10 at 8.30 p.m. on account of which one person died and some others were injured, yet the petitioner is not the owner of the quarry in question, but due to business rivalry the petitioner has been roped in the case.3. submission of the learned addl. s.p.p for the respondent-state is that, the complaint allegations indicate that this petitioner permitted the blasting of the stone which led to death of one thippeswamy and other persons being injured and the.....

Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent State in respect of the anticipatory bail petition filed.

2. Petitioner's counsel submits that, though the case is registered u/s 286. 338. 304-A of IPC r/w sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances act, following the blasting of the rock on 10.10.10 at 8.30 p.m. on account of which one person died and some others were injured, yet the petitioner is not the owner of the quarry in question, but due to business rivalry the petitioner has been roped in the case.

3. Submission of the learned Addl. S.P.P for the respondent-State is that, the complaint allegations indicate that this petitioner permitted the blasting of the stone which led to death of one Thippeswamy and other persons being injured and the petitioner used to get the explosive substances from one Shankar.

4. Having regard to the nature of allegations made and the contentions put forward, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory' bail by imposing conditions to safeguard the prosecution interest.

5. In the result, the petition is allowed subject to following conditions:

1. In the event of the arrest of petitioner by the concerned police in connection with Cr.No 363/10. He shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25.000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer.

2. He shall not. Tamper with the evidence and shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner 3. He shall co-operate with the investigating agency and assist them.

4. He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when he is called upon to do so.

5. Ho shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.