IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2981 of 2010()
1. PRAKASH KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2981 of 2010
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this 27th day of May, 2010.
ORDER
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act. According to prosecution, on 24.11.1981 at about
10 a.m. some country bombs and chopper were seized from the de
facto complainant’s shop. On enquiry, it was revealed those
articles were kept there by first and second accused. Petitioner is
the 2nd accused. Hence, a crime was registered against petitioner
and another.
3. The trial could not be proceeded with, because petitioner
was absent. Petitioner was granted bail in this case, but later he
absconded. Hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against
etitioner and he was arrested on 9.5.2010. He is in custody since
then.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
was granted bail but he was forced to go abroad in connection
with his job. He came back long back and is permanently residing
within the limits of police station but petitioner was not arrested
by police and hence he thought that proceedings were over. He
]B.A.No.2981/10] 2
may be granted bail, it is submitted.
5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel that
petitioner was available in the address is not correct. On
instruction, it was found that petitioner was not residing within the
limits of the police station within which crime is registered or in the
address shown by him. He was residing within the limits of
Kallambalam Police Station and petitioner could not be arrested
since he was absconding.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner’s counsel was
not even able to state the stage of the trial before trial court. The
case was transferred to long pending case as L.P.No.11/99. The
proceedings are at a stand still since petitioner’s presence could
not be procured. The order by which warrant is issued to petitioner
has become final. The said order is not so far challenged. There is
nothing to show that the order issuing warrant is illegal. In such
circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the trial court as per a lawful order. I am satisfied
that petitioner may not be available for trial, if bail is granted at
this stage.
Hence, petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.