LAWS(KAR)-2013-1-131

RAVI ALIAS RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA

Decided On January 21, 2013
Ravi Alias Ravindra Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka Represented By Additional State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Gulbarga Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE production of a typed copy of the order -sheet is dispensed with. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of rejection of the application for discharge. The complaint against the petitioner is that, the petitioner and two others had stored liquefied petroleum gas cylinders in the house of one Hanamant Shiravat, which was taken on lease by the petitioner and that they were indulging in illegal refilling of gas cylinders and selling it at a higher price to auto drivers, hotels and other cunsumers and that they were not licenced to do so. It was revealed that they were securing gas cylinders from Dharwad, with the assistance of one Allabax Ron and Riyaz Talikoti, who were accused Nos. 2 and 3. When the petitioner and his associates were refilling gas cylinders on 30.03.2009, because there was a leakage it caused fire, which resulted in an explosion, destroying the house where they were carrying out such activity, and resulting in the death of several people. The petitioner had absconded from the spot and later was charge -sheeted. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in Crl. P. 8517/2010, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's right was engrafted under Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C' for brevity). The petitioner had thereafter filed an application seeking discharge, which has been rejected and therefore, the present petition.

(2.) IN the face of the above circumstances, the court below having rejected the application for discharge, is by a reasoned order and at its discretion which has been exercised, in accordance with law. From a reading of the order, there is no warrant for interference by this Court, as the petitioner would have to stand trial and hence, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.