Allowed

Prakash M Rao v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021CRL.P/7383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with explosives offences. Although the petitioner could not be granted bail on merits due to serious charges, the court enlarged him on medical grounds requiring specialized treatment unavailable in prison.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties; ordered to undergo treatment and submit reports every six months.

Prakash M Rao Vs State of Karnataka by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7383 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

PRAKASH M. RAO S/O LATE N MUNI RAO AGED 70 YEARS R/AT PADUVANAGERE VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562112

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY Smt.K K THAYAMMA: ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SATHANOOR POLICE SATHANOOR, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562112

¶13

BY SPP. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH: HCGP )

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.141/2021 OF SATHNOOR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,5,6 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT AND SECTION 9(B) OF EXPLOSIVES ACT AND SECTIONS 286 AND 304 OF IPC.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.141/2021 of Sathnoor Police Station, Ramanagara district, pending before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, Ramanagara district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act 1884 read with Sections 286 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Sri Ravikumar C, PSI.

¶21

Heard Smt.K.K.Thayamma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶24

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 17.08.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the employees and accused No.4 who is the son of the present petitioner, who is running S.L.N maxime store, sold the explosives to accused No.1 unauthorizedly, as he is not the licence holder. In turn, accused No.1 while in possession of the explosives in his car, the same was exploded. As a result of which, he died at the spot. The damaged pieces of the car and the body remains scattered over an area of 50 to 100 meters away. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is no way concerned to the incident in question. He is the license holder to run the maxime store, which is valid up to 2023. The petitioner had produced the details of the explosives handled by him and sold to different persons. He has complied with all the

¶25

¶26

requirements. The investigation on the part of the present petitioner is almost completed. His detention in custody is not at all required and therefore, it would amount to pretrial punishment. Further, the petitioner is suffering from acute and Chronic Kidney disease and as per the directions of the learned Sessions Court he was referred to Ramanagara District hospital for treatment, then he was referred to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated from 26.08.2021 till 01.09.2021. The petitioner is also advised to undergo surgery and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on medical grounds. Accordingly, she prays for allowing the petition.

¶27

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though he is having license to deal with the explosives and stored it in the maxime store, he sold it to accused No.1 unauthorizedly, as he is not a license holder. Accused No.1 who was in possession

¶28

¶29

of the explosives and was in the car died at the spot due to heavy explosion. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the employees working under the petitioner and accused No.4 is his son. Thereby, all the accused have committed the offences. The investigation is still in progress.

¶30

As per the directions of this Court, learned High Court Government Pleader produced the medical report, with the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru and submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor the petitioner needs regular treatment. It is stated that only medicines are being provided in the Central Prison Hospital, but the treatment which is required for ailments are not being provided. Under such circumstances, learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶32

¶33

“Whether the petitioner is

¶34

entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for

¶36

the following:

¶37

R E A S O N S

¶38

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶39

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though it is contended that he is a license holder to run the maxime store and therefore, he has not committed any offences, cannot be accepted, as the allegation is that petitioner sold explosives to accused No.1 who is not a license holder. Admittedly, in the incident due to the explosion, accused No.1, who was carrying the same in his car, had died at the spot. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 were the employees working under the petitioner and accused No.4 is his son. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶40

¶41

However, the contention taken by the

¶42

petitioner is that he requires immediate medical assistance. The age of the petitioner is 70 years. As per the medical records produced before this Court, he is suffering from acute chronic kidney disease. As per the directions given by this Court, learned High Court Government Pleader produced the report with the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru, which reads as under:

¶43

“With reference to the above subject and references Mr.M.Prakash Rao S/o Late Muni Rao UTP-ENR-8346 is an elderly geriatric, aged around 70 years with impaired hearing, impaired vision and suffering from the following disease conditions as already mentioned in detail as per reference number 2.

¶44

His current medical diagnosis/medical problems:

¶45

1. Kidney failure/Chronic Kidney disease (CKDV)Plan to initiate Haemodialysis/Dialysis

¶46

2. Diabetic Kidney Disease-DKD

¶47

3. Urosepsis-resolved

¶48

4. Diabetes-Uncontrolled and Fluctuating Blood sugar levels on medications

¶49

¶50

5. High Blood Pressure-Hypertension/High BP

¶51

6. Hypertensive Heart Disease with low left Ventricular Systolic function, EF=40%-? in Heart Failure

¶52

7. Stroke-Old Cerebro Vascular Accident with Right Hemiparesis.

¶53

8. Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (resolved)

¶54

9. Both Eyes-Senile Immature Cataract (BE SIMC) with Non Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

¶55

At Central Prison Hospital, only medications can be provided which is already given to the above patient regularly on daily basis. However, since he needs better one-to-one patient care and multidisciplinary approach with consultation by Physician, Nephrologist, Cardiologist, which are Super specialist services, he needs treatment at Multispecialty Hospital. Since Specialist services are not available at Central Prison Hospital, Bangalore.

¶56

He complains of easy fatigability, breathlessness, Urinary problems, both Leg/Feet swelling and abdominal distension and discomfort, cough with expectoration.

¶57

Currently, his general condition is poor, he continues to be symptomatic with his earlier symptoms. His blood sugar is also high and fluctuating. His Serum Creatnine and blood urea levels are also abnormal in view of his Chronic Kidney Disease condition. Added to his old age, with poor oral intake of his diet, he is in a vulnerable and fragile state and condition.

¶58

¶59

He is also likely to develop Dys electrolytemia which can be fatal. The Specialist Doctors have planned for early AVF (Arterial Venus Fistula) Creation with plan for Haemodialysis for his Chronic Kidney Disease.

¶60

The above facilities are not available at Central Prison Hospital. They have also recommended renal diet, Vaccination, Cardiologist opinion in view of low ejection fraction. He also needs regular monitoring of Renal function tests, Serum Electrolytes and bicarbonate levels with regular follow up.

¶61

In view of his old age, uncontrolled Diabetic status, Hypertension, previous stroke, Heart failure, Kidney failure and in the current background of elevated serum creatinine and blood urea and electrolyte abnormalities, he is planned to be initiated on maintenance Haemodialysis and hence recommended for an Arterial Venus Fistula and complete vaccination schedule, with regular Multi specialist Consultation which needs Multispecialty Hospital care and services”.

¶62

Plain reading of this report stresses the need for enlarging the petitioner on bail on medical grounds to enable him, to undergo necessary treatment/surgery which

¶63

is very much needed under the present situation. Therefore, even though the petitioner is not entitled for

¶64

¶65

grant of bail on merits, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail on medical grounds. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶66

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶67

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The petition is allowed.

¶70

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.141/2021 of Sathnoor Police Station, Ramanagara district, pending before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, Ramanagara district, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶71

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶72

¶73

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶74

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶75

d). The petitioner shall undergo necessary medical treatment/surgery for his ailments and should submit reports with the opinion of the treating doctor/s to the trial Court regularly once in 6 months.

¶76

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶77

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

¶78

¶79

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

HB/SKS

Prakash M Rao v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash M Rao v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabarish Vs State by Koratagere Police Station

T S Madhusudhan @ Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

Ansaf K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen Yadav Vs State of Karnataka

Babu H K @ Pulsar Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Lokesh @ Chiru Vs the State of Karnataka by