Allowed

Robin T.B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6929/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 438 CrPC was filed by a 25-year-old accused accused of possessing explosive substances contrary to Sections 286 IPC and the Explosive Substances Act. The High Court allowed the bail application, noting the petitioner appeared to be engaged in well-digging, subjecting him to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties subject to four conditions.

Robin T.B. Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶7

(CRIME NO.127/2021 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR)

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

ROBIN T.B. AGED 25 YEARS S/O. BABY, THOREPLAVIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU, P.O PANACHERY, PANACHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682031

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP SMT.SREEJA V.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.127 of 2021 of Peechi Police station, Thrissur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 286 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosive Act, Section 4 (b)(i), 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 30.3.2021 the SHO, Peechi police station on suspicion intercepted a car driven by this petitioner bearing Reg.No.KL-49-A-4783 and on inspection the team found him in possession of explosive substances in contravention of the provisions of the Act and thereby he was apprehended and this case was registered.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he is a young man engaged with digging of wells in Pananchery Grama Panchayath where he is residing. Only for his job purpose he had kept certain explosives and it was not for an illegal purpose or he was having any intention to endanger the life of anyone. But he has been

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

falsely implicated in the case.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that initially the case was registered under the Explosives Act and he was summoned to the police station for interrogation. Later on investigation it was revealed that he has committed the offence coming under the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and thus the Section has been altered and now the case is under investigation.

¶27

Heard both sides. Perused the file.

¶28

The petitioner is a person aged only 25 years.

¶29

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

he is a professional well digger who takes contract for digging wells. So he kept certain explosives in connection with his work. He has also produced a letter issued by the ward member of ward No.5 of Pananchery Grama Panchayath to substantiate his case that he is only a well digger in that area . As per the letter dated 3.12.2021 of the ward member he is professionally engaged with this job and he has no criminal antecedents at all.

¶31

At this stage though it is not possible to conclude that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him prima facie it appears from the letter issued by the ward member that he is engaged

¶32

with the work of digging of wells where he is residing. But whether he

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

is having the required license for handling explosives is a matter to be probed into.

¶36

Still, I think that he can be granted pre-arrest bail subject to the following conditions so as to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation of the case which is well in progress. Moreover, it could be seen that he appeared before the investigating agency earlier when the case was registered under the Explosives Act and he was interrogated.

¶37

Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶42

BAIL APPL. NO. 6929 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶45

the jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel the bail in

¶46

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

smm

JUDGE

Robin T.B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin T.B. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhaneesh K. Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Haseer Vs State of Kerala

Jinshamol A.N Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shafi. M., Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala