IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5628 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
B.M.SRIDHAR S/O.LATE B.P.MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.1237, 9TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 40 (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY PULAKESHINAGAR P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX BANGALORE - 01 (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVEN OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.130/2019 OF PULAKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 337, 338, 427, 304 R/W.SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The respondent - police have registered a case in Crime No.130/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 427, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2019, when the respondent – police were on patrolling duty at about 2.10 a.m. they received information from the Police Control Room that a building situated at Hutchins Road, 2nd Cross in Pulakeshinagar has been collapsed. Immediately, the Police Sub Inspector along with his staff went to the spot and found that five storyed building had collapsed and some of the persons had died. On these allegations, a complaint came to be registered against many persons.
4. The petitioner’s name was not found in the FIR and he has not been arraigned as accused in this case. On 10.07.2019, it appears that Assistant Executive Engineer, Maruthi Seva Nagar Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, submitted a report to the Police Inspector, Frazer Town, stating that for collapse of the said building, Architect Engineer one - B.M.Sridhar, and others are responsible for the same. This petitioner’s name is specifically mentioned in the report. Therefore, he apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-police in connection with this crime number. The Sessions Judge has not granted bail to the petitioner because the petitioner is responsible for the preparation of the plans and other things. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel that the report submitted by the police i.e., remand application clearly disclose that one- Syed, structural Engineer who is responsible for the purpose of collection of materials for construction of the building and owner is also responsible for using such materials for the construction of the building, which made the building to collapse at the early stage. Learned counsel also brought to the notice that the owner of the said building accused No.1 has already been released on bail by the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.25734/2019.
5. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, during the course of investigation, the police have to find out what is the exact role of this petitioner. As on today, there are no specific allegations about the role played by the petitioner in the alleged offences. However, it is specifically made out that he had prepared plan of the said building. Whether he has got any role with regard to the construction of the building or not has to be ascertained during the course of the investigation. In the above circumstances, in my opinion, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.130/2019 of Pulakeshinagar Police Station, on following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.l,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in 15 days i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB