SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49977

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
MADHUMANDHIRATHIL VASUNDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1041/2018



Advocates:
SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS, SMT.E.U.DHANYA, SRI.AJITH MURALI

Bail can be granted even in cases involving serious allegations if the accused do not have criminal antecedents and the investigation is ongoing.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439 - The court interpreted provisions allowing for bail in non-violent offenses, considering the nature of allegations, stage of investigation, and lack of criminal history of the petitioners, leading to the decision to grant bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, accused in a case involving explosives, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police had seized explosives from the petitioners' quarry, but the petitioners asserted they were licensed for limited quantities and intended for quarry operations.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the alleged offense and the circumstances around the case.

Ratio Decidendi: In assessing bail eligibility, the court emphasized factors like the nature of allegations, investigation stage, and absence of prior criminal offenses, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to bail.

Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed subject to conditions.

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.41 of 2018 of the Peringome Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act , 1908.

3.On 07.02.2018, an inspection was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peringome Police Station in the house and quarry operated by the 1st petitioner herein. Large quantity of explosives were seized from the quarry premises and also the residential home, which is situated adjacent to the quarry. Separate crimes were also registered.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is operating a quarry and by Annexure-A1 he is entitled to possess and use of explosives not exceeding 25kgs of Class-2 explosives, 1500 meters of Safety fuses and 1500 numbers of Detonators. It is further submitted that even if the allegations are admitted as such, it would only amount to violation of licence conditions.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has very zealously opposed the prayer. The validity of Annexure-A1 licence is however not disputed.

6.I have gone through the case diary. It appears that the investigation has progressed much. There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents or that the explosives were meant to be used for any purpose other than for being used in the quarry.

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention undergone and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the petitioners can now be enlarged on bail.

8.In the result, this petition will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). Each of the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

2). The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 11 AM, for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

3)The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

4). The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail.

5).The petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top