Venkataramareddy vs State Of Karnataka

R. Nataraj, J

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as 'BNSS, 2023') seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.0037/2026, registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 288, 125 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as 'BNS'), under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884, pending consideration before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C. Court at Bagepalli.

The petitioner contends that the Police Sub- inspector (for short 'PSI'), Bagepalli, lodged a complaint on 02.02.2026, wherein he alleged that he received credible information about some people trying to quarry stones situated on the land in Lagumaddepalli Village, Bageplli Taluk, using explosives. The PSI claimed that when he visited the spot along with his staff and other paraphernalia, the persons committing the offence ran away and one of them was caught, who disclosed that the owner of the land in survey No.69/5 had paid money to remove the rock in the land. He also alleged that the apprehended accused along with the other accused had drilled holes in the rock and tried to explode them by using explosive substances. The PSI alleged the accused had not obtained any permit from the appropriate authority for using explosives to blast the rock. Based on this, a case in Crime No.0037/2026 was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences.

The petitioner contends that he was not named in the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') or in the complaint, but the respondent had shown the name of the owner of the land in question as Mr.Achari. He contends the allegation against him is that he had engaged accused No.1 to blast the rock. He contends that the land in survey No.69/5 stands in his name and he has not engaged any person to blast the rock. Nonetheless, the respondent police are trying to arraign him as an accused on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the land. He contends that he sought for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.70/2026, which was rejected in terms of the order dated 12.02.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.69/5, Lagumaddepalli Village and that he has not engaged any of the accused to blast the rock using explosive substances. He submits that the FIR shows one Mr.Achari is the owner of the land in question and that it was he who had engaged the accused to blast the rock. However, the police after coming to know that the petitioner is the owner are trying to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore prays that an order be granted directing the respondent police to release him in the event of his arrest. He submits that the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor life imprisonment and that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question where the accused were engaged to blast the rocks using explosive substances. She therefore contends that the role of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained and therefore, it is necessary that he be subjected to custodial interrogation. Hence, she prays that the petition filed for anticipatory bail be rejected.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.0037/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 288, 125 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884. There is no allegation per se about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The FIR shows the owner of the land in question as Mr.Achari was arraigned as accused No.4. Since it is claimed by the petitioner that he has not engaged anybody to remove the rock in his land and also since the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor life imprisonment, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. There are apparently no cases registered against the petitioner in the past and there is no material at this stage to suspect the involvement of the petitioner. The apprehension of the learned Government Pleader can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions on the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed;

ii. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police in Crime No.0037/2026, for offences punishable under Sections 288, 125 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884, subject to the following conditions:

a. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and furnishing a solvent surety for the likesum and to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

b. He shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

c. He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

d. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without the previous permission of the Court.

e. He shall not indulge in commission of any similar offences.

f. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it is open for the Investigating Officer to seek for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted.

In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it is open for the Investigating Officer to seek for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted.