Allowed

K.P. Sasidharan Achary v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2014Bail Appl./621/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, accused under the Explosive Acts for alleged possession of ammonium nitrate, subject to conditions including surrender for interrogation and a financial bond, while the licensing scope was left for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on executing bond with two sureties subject to conditions including surrender for interrogation, cooperation, and restriction on quarrying.

K.P. Sasidharan Achary Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/16TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 621 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 16/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.P. SASIDHARAN ACHARY S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, K.P. VILASOM VAZHATHOPPU PACHA, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/ STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 506.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

smv

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶17

-------------------------------Bail Appl. No.621 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 5^th day of February 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.16 of 2014 of

¶21

the Kadackal Police station for the offences punishable under Sec.4 of the Explosive Act and Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosive Substance Act for alleged possession of 100 Kg of Ammonium Nitrate, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that ammonium nitrate was seized from the quarry being operated by the petitioner, on 03.01.2014 at the relevant time along with 23 tubes containing gum, threads etc. meant to be used as explosive were also recovered.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that it is true that the quarry wherefrom ammonium nitrate was (allegedly) seized belong to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is duly licenced to run the quarry and use explosives for that purpose. The article seized was

¶24

Bail Appl. No.621 of 2014 2

¶25

meant to be used as explosive in the quarry. It is submitted that for possession of such explosives. The petitioner is duly licenced as per Annexure-I certificate (Annexure-I, certificate refers to nitrate mixture-slurry and emulsion explosives).

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor contended that what is permitted to be possessed as per Annexure-I is only nitrate mixture while, what is seized from the quarry is ammonium nitrate which is different. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, ammonium nitrate can be used only for agricultural purposes and not as explosive as per the Ammonium Nitrate Rules.

¶27

It appears that the petitioner has obtained some licences to run the quarry and possess nitrate mixture. That, ammonium nitrate was seized from the quarry being run by the petitioner is not very much in dispute.

¶28

On hearing both sides, I do not find that any material is required to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner by subjecting him to custodial interrogation. In

¶29

Bail Appl. No.621 of 2014 3

¶30

the circumstances, leaving the question whether Annxure-I certificate would empower the petitioner to possess ammonium nitrate to the appropriate Court to decide, I am inclined to think that the petitioner could be granted relief but, subject to conditions.

¶31

The application is disposed of as under.

¶32

Petitioner shall surrender before the

¶33

officer investigating Crime No.16 of 2014 of the Kadackal Police station on 12.02.2014 at

¶34

10.00 am for interrogation.

¶35

In case interrogation of the petitioner

¶36

is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.

¶37

Petitioner shall produce all relevant documents in his custody, control and possession and which may be required by the investigating officer in connection with the matter under investigation.

¶38

Bail Appl. No.621 of 2014 4

¶39

Petitioner shall co-operate with

¶40

investigation of the case.

¶41

In case after interrogation, arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶42

On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner (if not required to be detained otherwise) on bail on his executing bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶44

b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶45

c) Petitioner shall not get involved any

¶46

Bail Appl. No.621 of 2014 5

¶47

offence during the period of this bail.

¶48

d) Petitioner shall not conduct quarrying

¶49

operations or use explosives except as per licence obtained for the purpose.

¶50

e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶51

f) In case any of the condition nos.(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶52

Sd/THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /True Copy /

¶53

¶54

P.A. To Judge

K.P. Sasidharan Achary v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Sasidharan Achary v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State Ofkerala

Renganadhan Vs State of Kerala

Thankan Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer.v Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer B.K. Vs State of Kerala