IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4738 of 2008()
1. SASO. S/O.VELU, THACHANANIKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Application No.4738 of 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 25(1-A) of the
Arms Act. According to the prosecution, three persons were
arrested and from their possession, a revolver was seized. On
questioning them, it is revealed that it was given to them by the
petitioner, who is the 4th accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the said revolver.
Though the police conducted a search in his house, nothing could
be seized which will incriminate the petitioner. It is also
submitted that the petitioner is only a blacksmith and he is not
making any revolver. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that the case diary would reveal the involvement of
the petitioner. He was in possession of the article seized and he
may be required for custodial interrogation.
Ba No.4738/08 2
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner would
be required for custodial interrogation and it is not fit to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the learned
Magistrate to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the
same day. It is not possible to give such a direction, since it is
against the dictum laid down in Pappachan vs. Muthu (2005
(2) KLT 76).
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl