Anuprasad v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/23RD MAGHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 438 of 2015 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 5/2013 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT -------------- PETITIONERS :

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

1. ANUPRASAD, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, VELLUVA PILAKKNADY PUTHIYAVEETTIL, ERUVESSY AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

2. BINEESH K.P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, KIZHAKKE PURAYIL, ERUVESSY AMSOM DESOM, CHUNDAKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.NICHOLAS JOSEPH RESPONDENT :

-------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

============================ ============================= Dated this the 12th day of February, 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioners are A1 and A2 in Crime No.5 of 2013 of the Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 03.01.2013 at 00.30 a.m., they trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and hurled bombs, thereby causing severe explosion, which has resulted in severe damage to the house, thereby the defacto complainant has sustained a wrongful loss of ₹60,000/-.

4.

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

5. The contents of the CD prima facie reveal the complicity of the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are very grave and serious. The investigation of this case is not over. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners and the present stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for an opportunity to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, if so advised, the petitioners may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioners, effect recovery if any, and conduct the investigation and produce the petitioners without delay before the court below, where the petitioners can move for bail. In such case, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself, provided advance notice on such

application has been given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor also.

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/12/2/15 //True copy// P.A.To Judge