Kerala High Court
By Adv. Sri.G.P.Shinod vs By Adv. Sri.G.P.Shinod on 5 January, 2012
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/15TH POUSHA 1933
BA.No. 10939 of 2011 ()
===================
CRIME NO.1393/2011 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION.
..................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
===================
MUHAMMAD SHOOJA,
RESIDING AT 'SURUMA', TC 24/590,
THAIKKADU WARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
THAIKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD,
SRI.RAM MOHAN G.,
SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER
===========================================================
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.K. RAJEEV.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J
..................................................
B.A.No.10939 of 2011
..................................................
Dated 5th January, 2012
ORDER
Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail by the sole accused in Crime No.1393 of 2011 of Nemom Police Station registered for the offence under Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 9B(1)(a)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884.
2. The case of the petitioner is that though it was alleged that the second respondent, Sub Inspector, along with Assistant Geologist and Deputy Collector made inspection of the property of the petitioner for unauthorised quarrying activities, copy of the mahazar made available does not show any recent quarrying or any activity attracting an offence under Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act or under Section 9B(1)(a)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and in such circumstances, anticipatory bail is to be granted.
ba 10939/2011 2
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and the nature of the offences alleged, I am not inclined, in the interest of justice, to grant anticipatory bail. It is upto the petitioner to seek regular bail on surrender. Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk