IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW WEDNESDAY, THE30H DAY OF JULY20148TH SRAVANA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4641 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 257/2014 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ YESHPAL, S/O. SASIDHARAN, AGED41YEARS, NIRAPIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA. T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3007-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.4641 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.257/2014 of Kodumon Police Station, which has been registered for the offences under Sections 9(B) (b) of the Explosives Act. Later in the course of the investigation the above Section was deleted and Section 5(a) of the Explosives Substances Act was added.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he entrusted to the first accused, driver of a vehicle, emulsion paste contained in 9 boxes, detonators contained in another 9 containers and safety fuse contained in another box to be delivered to a shop at Kozhenchery and he has thus committed the offence under Section 5 (a) of the Explosives Substances Act.
3. Heard.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that on the very same date of the occurrence in this case, the police B.A. No.4641 of 2014 -2- have registered two more cases against the petitioner under Section 9(B) (b) of the Explosives Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a license to possess explosives substances, which is valid up to 2016.
6. The license is to possess and store the explosive substances in the premises at Kottarakkara mentioned in the license. It does not authorise him to transport it to other places. The petitioner was transporting it to Kozhenchery, which is not part of Kottarakkara. The co-accused, driver of the vehicle, was asked to deliver it at a shop. This indicates that it was not meant for a lawful purpose. So Section 5 (a) of the Explosives Substances Act is prima facie attracted. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 5 (a) of the Explosives Substances Act was added only for the reason that the first accused was granted bail and it was done with a malicious intention cannot be accepted. It may also be mentioned that the first accused was only carrying the B.A. No.4641 of 2014 -3- substances on the instructions of the petitioner. Detailed investigation is necessary to find out the purpose for which the shop owner wanted the explosive substances. Granting anticipatory bail tot he petitioner at this stage will frustrate the investigation. In the result, this application is dismissed. Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/