Allowed

Sajeev.P. v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013Bail Appl./255/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court granted bail in a second appeal against bail rejection in a case involving possession of explosives. The court deemed it a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction and ordered surrender by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted extraordinary bail and directed to surrender to Investigating Officer by 31.01.2013 to apply for regular bail.

Sajeev.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 255 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 209/2012 OF KAKKUR POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SAJEEV.P. AGED 38 YEARS

¶9

S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,MOROTH HOUSE,KARUVASSERY KOZHIKODE-673 010.

¶10

2. VISWANATHAN.M. AGED 42 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN,MOONNAM KUTTIYIL HOUSE,KARUVASSERY KOZHIKODE-673 010.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKKUR POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE-673 013.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶19

-----------------------------------------

¶20

B.A No.255 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.209/2012 of Kakkur Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

¶24

On 25.9.2012 at about 11.30 am. 50 Kg. of Ammonium Nitrate along with fuse wire were seized from the granite quarry in Kakkur. Initially a person by name Krishnan Kutty was arrested under the Explosive Act on the allegation that he had stored the article and was released on bail. Three months thereafter, the petitioners would pointed out that, without any provocation offences under the Explosive Substances Act were added and the petitioners were arrayed as 1^st and 2^nd accused and the Krishnan Kutty as the 3^rd accused.

¶25

The petitioners pointed out that they are the members of the Society, which is engaged in quarrying and the Society has got the necessary license to procure and store explosives.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor made available the

¶27

B.A No.255 of 2013 : 2:

¶28

records for perusal. There seems some substances in the complaint laid by the petitioners. Of course, it is stated in the letter communicated to Sub Inspector from the Ministry concerned that license holder is Sri.P.T. Mohammed for and on behalf of the Society and the Society has not so far distributed the articles to quarry owners. But the fact remains that the petitioners are members of the Society and they are entitled to engage in quarrying.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstance, it is felt that it is this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows:

¶30

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned and on applications for bail moved by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court.

¶31

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.

¶32

Iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders.

¶33

: 3:

¶34

B.A No.255 of 2013

¶35

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶36

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶37

P.BHAVADASAN Judge

¶38

Sajeev.P. v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev.P. v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Manoraj Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Najeema Vs Sub Inspector of Police