IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8882/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri K.Sunil S/o late Krishnappa Aged about 21 years R/at Bananduru Bidadi Post and Hobli, Ramanagara-562 019.
(By Sri Sharath J.M., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Amruthur Police Station Tumakuru District, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.106/2018 of Amruthur Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 506, 120-B, 201 and 384 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.106/2018 of Amruthur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 384, 427, 506, 120-B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 30.05.2018 at about 12.10 p.m., a complaint was registered alleging that he is working at Kamath Yathri Nivas as branch head and on 29.05.2018 while he had visited his branch office at Hoodi, Whitefield at about 1.12 p.m., he received a threatening message to his mobile bearing No.9980004502 from mobile number 8152084296 and he did not consider the said message very seriously and again at about 1.18 p.m., he received one more message and again he did not consider the said message very seriously and subsequently at about 3.03 p.m. he received one more message from the said number and he read all the messages and then he came to know that Rs.50,00,000/- was demanded from the Managing Director Sri Narayan Kamath and it was further stated that, if the said amount is not paid there was threat to his life and they would damage the hotel. It is further alleged that he decided to bring the same to the knowledge of Managing Director in the Corporate Office situated at Rajajinagar. Again at about 6.24 p.m. he received threatening call from the said number stating that he had not taken the matter seriously and they further informed that they had slightly damaged the hotel at Kunigal branch and they had given signal to them and disconnected the call. It is further alleged that on 27.05.2018 at about 2.45 p.m. there was explosion in the gent’s toilet of Kunigal branch hotel near the exhaust fan and subsequently they came to know that the said incident was caused by the persons who had given the threatening call and on the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the provisions of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not attracted. He further submitted that in order to attract the said provision there must be danger to the life or serious damage to the property. As per the PF report filed along with the charge sheet only a spray bottle pertaining to Hit Company and some pieces of the exhaust fan used in the window have been recovered. No substantial damage has been caused to any property of the complainant. He further submitted that earlier the complaint was registered against unknown persons. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 27.5.2018 and complaint has been registered on 30.5.2018. The said delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. He further submitted that the other offences are bailable except Section 3 of the Act which prescribed 10 years imprisonment and not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that while considering the bail application, delay in trial or conclusion of the trial must also be one of the grounds to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail. He further submitted that after disposal of the petition filed by accused No.1, this Court enlarged accused No.2 on bail by imposing some conditions. On the ground of parity and the changed circumstances the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act defines if there is material to show that the explosion has been caused and the said explosion has caused damage to the property, under such circumstances Section 3 of the Act is attracted. He further submitted that the mobile which has been used for the purpose of explosion has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Already charge sheet has been filed and this Court while considering the bail application in Criminal Petition No.5701/2018 has considered the merits of the case and has come to the conclusion that there are no good grounds to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. There are no changed circumstances to re-entertain the bail application. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners/accused No.1 and 3 have approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.5701/2018 and this Court by order dated 9.10.2018 has dismissed the petition. Now it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that this Court in Criminal Petition No.6316/2018 by order dated 26.3.2019 has enlarged accused No.2 on bail and on the ground of parity the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the said order. Therein, the facts and circumstances which have been relied upon is that he has not actively participated in the said crime, he has only given the threatening message and called the complainant and there are no other serious offences as against accused No.2. In that light, the bail application has been allowed and accused No.2 has been released. The ground of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner/accused No.1. All the grounds which have been urged have been dealt in detail by this Court in the earlier bail petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in AIR 2011 SC 340 that delay in concluding the trial, may be one of the grounds, but it is well proposed proposition of the law that the gravity of the offence, seriousness involved and active participation of the accused are also some of the considerations which has to be kept in mind.
9. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances that too when accused is involved in a serious offence of explosing the property of the complainant and has also given the threatening call, the petitioner/accused No.1 has not made out any good grounds to re-consider the bail application. The same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-