IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Abdulkhader - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102725 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 286, 337, 338, 304, 304A, 34 of IPC and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought bail in a case involving a fire mishap at a factory resulting in injuries and fatalities. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as the owner of the factory, was responsible for the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the offences alleged, except for the one under Section 304 of IPC, were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It also noted that the petitioner had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and was not required for custodial interrogation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the severity of the alleged offences and the prosecution's concerns about hampering the investigation and tampering with witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court decided that there were valid grounds for granting bail, subject to stringent conditions, based on the nature of the alleged offences and the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, imposing specific terms and conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Hubballi Rural Police Station Crime No. 168/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri. Veerabhadrappa Yachalagar has filed complaint stating that his wife Smt. Vijayalaxmi along with few others were working in M/s I.C. Flame Sparkle factory, Tarihal Industrial Area, Hubballi. It is further stated that the accused persons were manufacturing birthday sparkle candles and on 23.07.2022 at 3:45pm fire broke out at the said premises and along with his wife, other workers sustained injury. The injured were shifted to KIMS hospital, Hubballi. However, the wife of the complainant succumbed to the injures. On 24.07.2022, a complaint came to be filed. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 168/2022 of Hubballi Rural Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner came to be arrested on 31.07.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5425/2022 seeking bail and the came to be rejected by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, by order dated 09.09.2022. Therefore, accused No. 1 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 that the petitioner is not a owner of said industry. It is his further submission that accused No. 2 has been granted bail and accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, therefore on the ground of parity this petitioner/accused No. 1 is also entitled for grant of bail. It is his further submission that on looking to the averments made in the complaint, the offence under Section 304 is not attracted, utmost the offence attracted is Section 304A of IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the police in the investigation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous offences. Investigation is still under progress. Punishment prescribed for one of the offences under Section 304 of IPC is imprisonment for life. The petitioner has not taken precaution in the industry and he has not made any arrangement for safety measures. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint, remand application and the order passed by the Sessions Court.
7. A fire mishap occurred in M/s I.C. Flame Sparkle Factory, Tarihal Industrial Area, Hubballi, on 23.07.2022 at 3:45 pm. In that fire mishap, 11 employees working in the said industry have sustained injuries and out of them, 4 succumbed to the injuries. A complaint has been filed by the husband of one of the deceased employee. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 is the owner of the said industry and accused No. 2 was working as a Manager. What is the cause for fire mishap has not been stated in the complaint. The offences alleged against the petitioner except the offence under Section 304 of IPC, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence punishable under Section 5 of the E
The main legal point established is that the severity of alleged offences and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail.
The court ruled that bail can be granted if investigation reveals insufficient evidence of the accused's malicious intent, despite serious charges being laid against them.
Point of law : The expression ‘negligence’ has also not been defined in the Penal Code, but, that has not deterred the Courts from giving what has been widely acknowledged as a reasonably acceptable ....
The court evaluates the necessity of custodial interrogation in light of allegations under varying statutes, granting bail due to lack of evidence and previous criminal record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of parity in granting bail to the petitioner, despite the serious nature of the offences, and the imposition of st....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.