BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15311 of 2011 GOMU ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GANGAIKONDAN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.209/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.R.ANAND ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police of the alleged offence under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No.209 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Government Advocate[Crl side] appearing for the respondent State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner's name was not found in the F.I.R. and the said explosives have been only seized from the present accused Nos.1 and 2 shown in the F.I.R. and the petitioner has no connection with the said persons and the petitioner had license once and it was suspended and thereafter, he was not indulged in the selling of such explosives. 4.He would further submit that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the alleged confession given by the first accused in the F.I.R. and it is not true. He would further submit that the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence and there is no nexus for the petitioner in the alleged crime that too along with the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. He would further submit that he is ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed on him and hence, he may be released on anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner is none other than the younger brother of the first accused and the confession given by the first accused go to show that both the first accused and the petitioner have jointly doing the business of selling the explosives without license even after the suspension of the license in favour of the petitioner and there is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ criminally against him and therefore, he is not eligible for granting anticipatory bail. 6.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the confession given by the first accused has to be considered only in the trial and therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would request this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the Sessions Court and to file a petition for bail and the petition may be considered on the same day. 7.Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant permission to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and to file petition for bail within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing such an application, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is directed to consider the same on the same day purely on merits. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. sd/- 24/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TIRUNELVELI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANGAIKONDAN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S.R.ANAND ADVOCATE SR.NO.41295. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15311 of 2011 Date :24/11/2011 2P/5C RPB : 25.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/