CRL.P/7484/2012 of SANTOSH Vs STATE BY SRIRANGAPATTANA POLICE STATION on 28 December 2012

ORDER

Petitioner.ISrankedas|accusedNo.3|inCrime.No.5/70/2012 for the offence punisnabie under Section 285,286 of IPC and Section 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Apprenending arrest, ne seeks for a direction to the.Investigating Officer to release him on bail in the event of his|arrest.

2 |State has opposed the grant of bail.

3. |Tne material allegations against the petitioner aretnat he is the owner of the stone quarry from where stones.were being shifted in two lorries bearing registration Nos.KA-09 A-4639 and GA-09 U-1493. They found detonators 40 kgs. |of Ammonium Nitrate, Dial Power-90, Explosive Class-IT 125|gm measuring 25 mili meters. The said contraband was.recovered from tne quarrying site in Survey No./2 of.Channakere Village, Srirangapatna Taluk. They also found|some persons trying to use the explosive for bDiasting stonesfrom the mine. Thus, the police officers seized the contraband and registered a case for the offences indicated above showingtne petitioner herein as accused No.3. There are two morepersons arraigned as accused for similar offences. Accordingto the prosecution, it is the petitioner who is responsible forthe storage of such explosive without licence or permit.

Tne petitioner, on his part, has denied all allegations andcontends, he is not the owner of stone quarry in Survey No./72of Channakere Village, Srirangapatna Taluk. He is also not theowner of Survey No./72 of Channakere Village, SrirangapatnaTaluk. According to him, he is a Civil Contractor who ownslorries and uses the vehicle for transporting the stone jelly inconstruction activity. Tnus, he has disassociated himself fromtne quarrying activity.

However, there was no affirmative statement in thepetition, he is not the owner of the quarry from where thecontraband was recovered.

Petitioner has filed an affidavit today declaring that he is not the owner of quarrying site from where the explosiveSubstances were recovered.

On perusal of the material, it could be seen that the)recoveries is not from the lorries which he owns. But, it isfrom the quarrying site. In the normal course, the owner ofthe quarrying site would be answerable for sucn storage. ©Therefore, prima facie even at this juncture, as noticed, thematerial collected is not so strong as to hold the petitioner nasindulged in such act in contravention of the relevant provisionsof tne Act. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant therelief sought for. Hence, tne following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed on the following conditions;

1) The petitioner is directed to appear before theinvestigating officer in charge of investigation in Crime.No.5/70/2012 of Srirangapatna Police Station within two weeksfrom now and on his appearance, the investigating officer may.arrest him and shall release him on Dail on his executing a.bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the.likesum to the satisfaction of the said officer.

il)He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and co-operate and tender hnimself forinvestigation and help in recovery, if any.

Conclusion

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court|without prior permission.

Prs*

SD/-—JUDGE