IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4677 of 2009()
1. NAWAS, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
2. MOHAMMED SALI, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 4677 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner had filed B.A. No.7189/2008 for the same
relief which is prayed for in this Bail Application. That Bail
Application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court as per the order dated 10/02/2009. For the sake of
convenience, the order dated 10/02/2009 is extracted below:
” Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence are under Sections 27 of
Arms Act and 102 of Cr.P.C. According to prosecution,
a Qualis car and a motorcycle were found parked by
the side of a road on 11.8.2008 and on search of
same, sword, chopper etc. were found inside the car.
On investigation, it is revealed that petitioners have
kept the weapons in the car for the purpose of
commission of offence.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners are innocent of the allegations made, First
petitioner had lodged a complaint against one Jaleel
B.A. No. 4677/2009
2
and the FIR in the said crime is Annexure-I. The said
Jaleel insisted on to settle the case and since first
petitioner was not amenable, he was threated with
dire consequences. Petitioners have been falsely
implicated in this case at the distance of the said
Jaleel. Petitioners may be grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted
that offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act will not
be attracted since there is no evidence to show that
petitioners have used any prohibited arms in
contravention of Section 7. The mere possession of
prohibited arms will not be an offence under Section
27 of the Arms Act as laid down by the Supreme Court
in Mahendra Singh v. State of W.B. (AIR 1973 SC
2288), it is submitted. Therefore, petitioners are not
liable for non-bailable offence, it is contended.
Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is
submitted.
5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that on investigation, it is
B.A. No. 4677/2009
3
revealed that all the accused had kept the articles in
the vehicle and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail. It is also pointed out that even if Section 27 of
Arms Act is not attracted the allegation made in this
case will clearly fall under Section 25(1A) of the Act.
If a person is in possession of any prohibited arm in
contravention of Section 7 of the Act, he will be liable
under Section 25(1A) of the Act and it is a non-
bailable offence. Section 7 prohibits a person from
possession of any prohibited arm. Therefore, the
wrong quoting of section will not be of any help to
petitioners, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that
investigation is in the initial stage and charge-sheet
has not been laid. Any misquoting of section will not
give any benefit to petitioners. Considering the
serious nature of allegations made, this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was
registered as early as on 11.8.2008 and petitioners
are not available for arrest and interrogation. Hence,
the following order is passed:
B.A. No. 4677/2009
4
1) Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer forthwith and co-
operate with the investigation. Whether he
surrenders or not, police is at liberty to
arrest him and proceed in accordance with
law.
2) No further application for anticipatory bail
by the petitioner in this crime will be
entertained by this Court.
Petition is dismissed.”
I do no find any ground to entertain a second application
for anticipatory bail. There is no change of circumstance or any
other circumstance warranting the filing of the second application
for anticipatory bail.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm