Guddu Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASARALU POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSE RESP MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY STATE HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:22749 CRL.P No. 4357 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.5/2026 REGISTERED BY THE BASARALU P.S UNDER THE OFFENCES P/U/S 105,125(a) OF BNS AND SECTION 3 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC II COURT, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, who is accused No.3 in Crime No.5/2026 registered in Basaralu Police Station, Keragodu Circle, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 125(a) of BNS and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, is before this Court seeking grant of bail.

¶24

Case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by one G.M.Hampeshaiah working as a Security Guard of "Keerthi Chemicals" factory situated at Karekatte Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District, stating that the said factory had been closed for over 4 years and had engaged the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22749 CRL.P No. 4357 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

accused No.4 to dismantle the equipments. The said process of dismantling is going on for about 2 months.

¶28

That on 15.02.2026 at about 8.00 a.m. about seven to eight persons deputed by the accused No.3 herein were working inside the factory and were using gas cutter to remove a tanker. During the process there was a blast resulting in two persons succumbed to the effect at the spot and other two sustained injuries.

¶29

On enquiry it was found that the deceased persons namely Kallu Khan and Akash and the injured persons Santosh and Kassim were from Uttar Pradesh and were sent to hospital. The owners of Keerthi Chemicals is one L.M.Munirathna Shetty-accused No.1 and Sanjay-accused No.2. The Engineer had not taken precaution while carrying out the dismantling work which has resulted in the death of two persons and injury to other two.

¶30

Based on the said complaint, case in Crime No.5/2026 was registered for the offences noted above.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22749 CRL.P No. 4357 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.3 was responsible only for supplying the labourers. While the supervision of the work was the responsibility of accused No.4 who is the Chemical Engineer of the factory. It is submitted the owner of the factory is L.M.Munirathna Shetty. Accused No.1 and Chemical Engineer-accused No.4 have been granted bail. While the prosecution has not even arrested accused No.2, who is co-owner of the factory.

¶34

Accused has been arrested on 15.02.2026 and has been behind the bars for no fault of his.

¶35

Learned HCGP does not dispute that accused No.1 and accused No.4 have already been granted bail. However, it is submitted that the responsibility of dismantling the equipments as per the complaint was of the petitioner-accused No.3. Hence seeks for rejection of the petition.

¶36

Heard and perused the records.

¶37

Allegation in the complaint indicates that the factory was shut down for about 4 years and the work involved was dismantling of the equipments. It also indicate that the factory

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22749 CRL.P No. 4357 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

belongs to accused Nos.1 and 2 and while it was under the supervision of accused No.4, petitioner-accused No.3 had apparently supplied the labourers. Offences are not punishable with life imprisonment or death. That apart, since the accused No.1 and accused No.4 have already been granted bail, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 to treat his case on parity considering limited role of accused No.3 in the entire process. This Court is of the considered view petitioner-accused No.3 has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶41

Accordingly the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Petition is allowed .

¶44

Petitioner-accused No.3 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.5/2026 registered by the Basaralu Police Station, Keragodu Circle, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Section 105 of BNS, Section 125(a) and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, subject to following conditions:

¶45

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:22749 CRL.P No. 4357 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

(ii) Petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons.

¶51

(iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶53

(v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶54

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶55

SBN

¶56

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6

Guddu Khan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Khan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H v Nagaraj Vs Thimmaiah

Nagendra. K Vs Lakshmana

Mr Murugandi Tevar @ Kumar Vs Stat of Karnataka

Kahaja Pasha @ Khaja Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent Raj M Vs State of Karnataka

Pramoda @ Pramod H N Vs State of Karnataka