Dismissed

Vasu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022Bail Appl./8406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to a licensee whose licence had expired years prior to the seizure of a large quantity of explosives. The court held custodial interrogation was necessary due to the quantity and suspicious circumstances, directing surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Denied anticipatory bail. Directed applicant to surrender within two weeks to the investigating officer and be produced before the Magistrate under Section 57 CrPC.

Vasu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 8406 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.573 OF 2021 OF KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION,

PALAKKAD

PETITIONER:

VASU,

AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. PALLI, ADIYATHUPADAM HOUSE, AYYAKKADU, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

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

¶14

SRI.M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON 05.01.2022 DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.8406 of 2021

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

B.A.No. 8406 of 2021

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.573 of 2021 of Kollengode Police Station. The offence alleged is under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶26

The allegation is that the petitioner is a tenant in Room Nos.5/645 and 6/645 belonging to one Silpa, W/o Pradeep, Reghunathanam House, Pathanara, Kollengode. The petitioner stored 1850 electric detonators, 1073 gelatin sticks and 31 kgs. of crackers in the said rooms without having any licence or authority. The said rooms were searched at 5.45 p.m. on 25.10.2021 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollengode and seized the said articles.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.8406 of 2021

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the investigating officer.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even admitting that the petitioner was in possession of those articles, no offence under Section 5 of the Act would be constituted since there is no allegation that the petitioner stored those articles with the object of committing any unlawful activity. It is further contended that the petitioner is a licensee under the Explosives Act and Rules, although at the time of seizure, his licence had already expired, by stocking those articles, no suspicious circumstance can be inferred. The offence has been constituted only because of the expiry of the licence and the offence that could be constituted can only be under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, which is bailable.

¶32

Annexure B is a copy of the licence, which expired on 31.03.2019. He did not take any steps to renew the licence. The seizure was on 25.10.2021. After such a long gap of date of expiry of the licence, such a huge quantity of

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.8406 of 2021

¶35

explosive substances were found in possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner on a mistaken impression stored those explosive materials. What was the intention of the petitioner in storing that much quantity of explosives, which would answer the definition of explosive substances is a matter to be investigated into. In the nature and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the plea of the petitioner that the offence by possessing those articles by him, who once was a licensee under the Explosives Act, would only be an offence under the Explosives Act for unauthorised possession of explosives. Hence, I hold that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is seen necessary in this case and the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶36

Taking into account all such matters, the application is disposed of directing the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks. In the event of his surrendering before the investigating officer, he shall, after interrogation and necessary other

¶37

¶38

B.A.No.8406 of 2021

¶39

formalities of investigation, be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction within the time specified in Section 57 of the Code. If any bail application is filed by the petitioner, on such production, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same, as far as possible, on the same day.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

dkr

Vasu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu 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

Muhammed Sudheer, Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan @ Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Firose Babu Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Raj Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Kumari, Vs State of Kerala