IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 964 of 2008()
1. C.I.PAUL, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 964 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations of commission of offences punishable under the
Arms Act. The Forest officials allegedly searched the premises
in the possession of the petitioner and recovered various articles.
In respect of the articles which offend the Forest Act,
proceedings are continuing under the Forest Act. But in the
course of such search they came across what is described as
“parts of a gun”. The same was taken into custody by the forest
officials, but as they were unable to investigate into the said
offence under the Arms Act, a report was submitted before the
police, on the basis of which this crime has been registered
alleging commission of the offence under the Arms Act.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations even if accepted in toto, cannot justify any indictment
B.A.No. 964 of 2008
2
for any offence under the Arms Act. Even a cursory reading of the
F.I.R. must convince this Court that what is seized is not a serviceable
fire arm and is only discarded and useless parts of a fire arm. The
learned counsel in these circumstances submits that the petitioner does
not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and incarceration on the basis
of such allegations.
3. The learned Prosecutor was requested to read over to this
Court the description of the fire arm allegedly seized. The same has
been read over to me. What is recovered is a part of a gun rusted also.
I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merits about the
acceptability of the allegations now. Suffice it to say that I am
satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The
learned Prosecutor fairly does not oppose the application. Subject to
appropriate conditions, anticipatory bail can be granted to the
petitioner, I am satisfied.
4. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438
B.A.No. 964 of 2008
3
Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate
on 26.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the
petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on
27.2.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer in writing to do so.
(c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse
on 26.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the
petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on
26.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail
B.A.No. 964 of 2008
4
on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.2.2008.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm