Latest News
Back
Document:
Karnataka HC: “It is not the case of the prosecution that the explosive substances seized were provided by the present petitioner”.
The brief facts resulting in the case are that the complainant has filed the complaint before the respondent-police alleging that on 25.03.2021 within the afternoon he received reputable information that explosive substances are illegally stored in front of the house of accused No.1 at Aralabenchi Village. Then the complainant has secured two panchas and visited the house of accused No.1 and wherein they found that in two bags the perfect power 90 explosive class 2, 116 gelatin stick, 1 power charger battery, 25 aluminium electrical detonators were stored. Then on inquiry, the accused No.1 disclosed that the explosive substances were stored to use for blasting rocks within the agricultural lands and plots. But they didn't have any licenses. it's also alleged that he has disclosed that he has purchased them at the instance of the present petitioner and other accused. Hence, the case came to be registered against the accused.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated within the present case only at the instance of the alleged voluntary statement said to possess been given by accused No.1. He contended that no recovery was made at the instance of this petitioner and he undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. it's further contended that the opposite accused persons are granted bail and on the bottom of parity, this petitioner is entitled to normal bail.
The learned high court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has provided explosive substances to accused No.1 with no license or permit and no statutory safeguards are followed while storing the explosive substances. it's further contended that there's clear material as against this petitioner and hence, he has looked for rejection of the petition.
It was held that there's absolutely no material at this juncture as against this petitioner, except the alleged confessional statement said to possess been given by accused No.1. Accused No.1 has already been granted bail by this Court. Under these circumstances, the Court didn't find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on regular bail. the opposite apprehensions raised by the learned high court Government Pleader are often administered by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition was allowed.
Document:
