Prasad vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7866 of 2008()


1. PRASAD, MULLASSERY HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :06/02/2009

 O R D E R
                                  K. HEMA, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------------
                         Bail Appl. No. 7866 of 2008.
                  ---------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009.


                                      ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 3 r/w Sec. 25

(1)(a) of Arms Act. According to prosecution, the house of the

first accused was searched by police on 25.11.2008 and three

country-made guns were seized from his house. On investigation,

it is revealed that one of the guns was given by petitioner, who is

the 2nd accused, to the first accused.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner has not committed any offence and there is only

confession of a co-accused to connect petitioner with the crime.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that investigation is conducted and it has come out in

evidence that petitioner was in possession of a country-made gun

and hence it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. First and

second accused are close friends and they are engaged in illegal

sand mining as per the materials in the case diary.

5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious

nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to co-operate

B.A.NO.7866/08] 2

with the investigation and surrender before the investigating

officer. Learned counsel for petitioner has not stated any reason

for the first accused to falsely implicate the petitioner. The crime

is registered as early as on 25.11.2008. Hence, the following

order is passed:

1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating

officer and co-operate with the investigation.

2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the

petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this

Court.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.