Mr Manjunath Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6998 Kant

                                                    -1-
                                                                 NC: 2023:KHC:36068
                                                            CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1680 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   MR. MANJUNATH REDDY
                           S/O LATE D M RAMAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                           R/AT NO.36, NEAR KUSHAL WATER SUPPLY
                           SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE POST
                           YELAHANKA TALUK
                           BANGALORE 560064.
                                                                         ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. M S SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                          DR. VANDANA P L., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           BY WHITEFIELD P.S.
                           REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE
                           HIGH COURT COMPLEX
                           BANGALORE 560001.

                      2.   SMT KALYANI
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA            W/O SRINIVAS
MURTHY RAJASHRI
                           AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   R/T NO. E193, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
KARNATAKA
                           KAVERI NAGAR, MAHADEVAPURA
                           BANGALORE 560048
                                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1
                          MISS YUKTHA N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
                      PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN
                      CR.NO.209/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 6, 3 AND 5 OF THE
                      EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT AND SEC. 3(1)(r) OF SC AND ST
                      (POA) ACT AND SEC. 9B OF EXPLOSIVES ACT AND SEC. 201, 286,
                      338 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE 2ND
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:36068
                                       CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023




ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT BANGALORE RURAL,
BANGALORE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

Appellant - accused No. 1 has filed this appeal

praying to set aside the order dated 26.08.2023 passed in

Crl.Misc.No. 1681/2023 by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru

whereunder the bail petition filed by appellant - accused

No. 1 sought in respect of crime No. 209/2023 of

Whitefield Police station registered for offence punishable

under Sections 201, 286, 338 read with Section 34 of IPC,

Section 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908,

Section 9-B of Explosive Act, 1884 and Sections 3(1)(r) of

Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the `SCST (POA)

Act') came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for appellant -

accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -

State. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is present

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

through video conferencing and submits that she has no

objection for grant of bail to appellant - accused No. 1.

3. Case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2

filed a complaint stating that her husband Sri. Srinivas

went for work in an ongoing work at Kushal Earth Movers

project located near Vaidehi Hospital. On 07.07.2023,

when respondent No. 2 went to work at 06.30 am, some

one informed her that her husband and co-worker Sri.

Manikanta had met with an accident and they were

admitted to Koshys Hospital. Respondent No. 2 went to

the said Hospital and noticed that her Husband and Sri.

Manikanta were admitted in the ICU and they were not in

a condition to communicate. Respondent No. 2 on enquiry

came to know that owners i.e. accused Nos. 5 and 6 were

getting the work done and appellant - accused No. 1 and

accused No. 2 had obtained a contract which was

managed by accused No. 4. On 06.07.2023, at about

11.30 p.m., accused Nos. 2 to 5 illegally got supplied

gelatin substance and used the same for blasting. During

blasting incident husband of respondent No. 2 and another

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

person sustained severe injuries. Respondent No.2 belongs

to Schedule Caste and she filed the complaint on

07.07.2023. Said complaint came to be registered in crime

No.209/2023 for the aforesaid offences. Appellant who is

arraigned as accused No. 1 in the FIR came to be arrested

on 08.07.2023 and he is in judicial custody. Appellant -

accused No. 1 filed Crl. Misc. No. 1681/2023 seeking bail

and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order

dated 26.08.2023 which is challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant -

accused No. 1 would contend that the appellant - accused

No. 1 is the owner of a contracting agency and there

might be some negligence on the part of accused persons

which might have caused the injury to the husband of

respondent No.2 and another. Said negligence cannot be

attributed to commission of any offence as alleged. He

submits that appellant - accused No. 1 was not at the spot

at the time of incident. Accused No. 2 who is similarly

placed to that of accused No. 1 has been granted

anticipatory bail by the Sessions/Special Court. Offences

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

alleged against appellant - accused No. 1 are not heinous

offences. Without considering all these aspects learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rejected the bail petition which

requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to

allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused

No. 1.

5. Per contra learned HCGP appearing for respondent

No. 1 - State would contend that husband of respondent

No.2 - Sri. Srinivas who was injured in the accident

succumbed to the injuries. The other injured Sri.

Manikanta has sustained severe injuries and he has lost

his eyes. Appellant - accused No. 1 and other accused

have not obtained any permission for blasting. There is

negligence on their part. Statement of Sri. Manikanta

would reveal the presence of appellant - accused No. 1

and accused No. 2 at the spot and after the incident they

took the injured persons in their car to the Hospital. Matter

is still under investigation and if appellant - accused No. 1

is granted bail there are chances of hampering the

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.

With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard learned senior counsel for appellant

- accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 -

State this Court has gone through the impugned order,

FIR, complaint and other documents.

7. Appellant - accused No. 1 is owner of a

contracting agency under the name Kushal Earth Movers

Private Limited and he is getting work done through others

wherein Sri. Srinivas and Sri. Manikanta were working in

the said controlled blasting. A perusal of the complaint and

other documents reveal that an accident occurred in the

blasting which resulted in injuries to Sri. Srinivas and Sri.

Manikanta. Said Sri. Srinivas succumbed to the injuries in

the Hospital. A perusal of the records would reveal that

there is negligence on the part of this appellant - accused

No. 1 and other accused. Appellant - accused No. 1 who

has been arrested on 08.07.2023 is in judicial custody.

Appellant - accused No. 1 has undertaken to cooperate

with the Police in investigation. As appellant - accused No.

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

1 is in judicial custody there is no need of him for custodial

interrogation. Offence alleged are not heinous offences

punishable with either death or imprisonment for life.

There was no intention on the part of the appellant -

accused No. 1 to cause any injury to the workers. Without

considering all these aspects learned Sessions/Special

Judge has passed the impugned order which requires

interference of this Court. Appellant - accused No. 1 has

made out grounds for setting aside impugned order and

grant of bail.

In the result, the following;

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

26.08.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1681/2023 by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru is set aside. Appellant - accused No. 1

is granted bail in crime No. 209/2023 of Whitefield Police

Station subject to the following conditions.

I. Appellant - accused No. 1 shall execute a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

NC: 2023:KHC:36068 CRL.A No. 1680 of 2023

(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

II. Appellant - accused No. 1 shall cooperate with

the Police in investigation.

III. Appellant - accused No. 1 shall not tamper

prosecution witnesses.

IV. Appellant - accused No. 1 shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any witness acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to the

Police Officer.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS