Kerala High Court
Ibrahimkutty.K vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2010
Author: K. Hema
Bench: K.Hema
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3713 of 2010()
1. IBRAHIMKUTTY.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/06/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J
---------------------------
B.A.No. 3713 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences is under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. According to prosecution 31,900 ordinary detonators, 50 Electric Detonators, 980 gelatin detonators were seized from a building which is in the possession of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that annexure -1 is a licence issued to the petitioner. He surrendered the licence as revealed from annexure -2 letter issued to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, chennai. As per the provisions under the Act, if the licence is not cancelled, petitioner will be deemed to have licence. It is also submitted that the explosive substances shall have to be taken possession of by the authorities concerned on surrender of the licence. But, no case can be registered against petitioner stating that contraband articles are in his possession. Petitioner is unnecessarily dragged into this case, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner was keeping in possession the explosive B.A. No.3713/10 2 substances which were seized in a search conducted by the officials on 12.5.2010. Petitioner is involved in another case also, which was registered by Tamil Nadu police alleging that he had sold explosive substances to LTTE. Petitioner is required for interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. According to counsel for the petitioner, in the case registered by Tamil Nadu police, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail by Madras High Court.
6. On hearing both sides and on going through annexure A1 and A2, it appears that petitioner had licence and he had also sent a letter to Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Chennai, stating the stock of explosives and details of stock which were available with him. But, a comparison of the quantity of the explosive substances seized and those which are stated to be in possession of petitioner, I find that more explosive substances than which are referred to in Annexure -2 were in his possession. Petitioner is bound to explain the possession of those articles, but there is no explanation. In such circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.