IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.403 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
John Aasir S/o Rajshekar Aged about 35 years Residing at No.43 Behind CSI Church Melupudukudi village Amba Samudram Tirunelveli Tamilnadu-600 120.
(Presently in judicial custody Lodged at Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore). …PETITIONER (By Sri.R.Nitin, Adv. for Sri.Robin Christoper.J., Adv.) AND:
State represented by Vyalikaval Police Station Investigated by Central Crime Branch (CCB) Bengaluru-560053.
Represented by S.P.P. High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.118/2013 of Vyalikaval police station, Bengaluru city, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 121, 121(a), 123, 212, 201, 332, 435, 427, 307 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Sections 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner is charge-sheeted by the respondent police in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 121, 121(a), 123, 307, 332, 435, 201 of IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in the additional charge sheet submitted to the Court in their FIR No.118/2013 dated 17.4.2013.
3. The gist of the allegation is that the accused persons exploded a bomb near the BJP office, Malleswaram on 17.4.2013. Accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 are the members of the banned terrorist organization and intended to cause threat and panic among the public, thereby fetter the economy, security of the country and wage war against the government etc.
4. The petitioner arrayed as accused No.22 in the additional charge sheet. Specific allegation against him is, despite having knowledge about the involvement of the 16th accused in the zihad activities, he stealthily furnished explosive substance from his work place to accused No.21, thus directly responsible for the explosion, and committed the offences under Sections 307, 332, 435 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.
5. Sri.R.Nitin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the witnesses have stated about the conscious involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offences. He was not a member of the conspiracy and had no intention to commit militancy. As per the statement of the witnesses themselves, first time he furnished the explosive to accused No.21 believing his version that gelatin was required for construction of a river canal and second time he furnished gelatin sticks believing accused No.21 that the same was required for digging well. Admittedly, there was no loss to any life, though one person suffered grievous injury during the blast. The petitioner being innocent of the conspiracy, between the accused inter se, being in custody for one year, he may be released on bail.
6. The prosecution vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that though there was no loss to any life, the incident could have been catastrophic and would have caused much more damage and loss to the public property and life and also to the State in general. Twice he has supplied explosives to the accused No.21 and now he cannot claim innocence and absence of mensrea. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled for bail.
7. With the above submissions and on going through the statements of the witnesses, it emerges that this petitioner supplied explosive twice to accused No.21. The innocence of the petitioner in the alleged offence can be his defence during the trial and thereafter. As such, though there is no allegation against the petitioner for direct involvement in the explosion or attempt to cause explosion or being in possession of the explosive with an intent to endanger life or property, but any possession or control over explosive substance, by itself is enough to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to 10 years.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not an appropriate stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, while framing the charge, to draw the attention of the Court, to the limited involvement of this petitioner in the alleged crime.
9. With this observation, petition is rejected.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE