IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4738 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.923/2008 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SASI. S/O.VELU, THACHANANIKKAL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM (P.O), THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.G.PADMARAJ RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4738 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, three persons were arrested and from their possession, a revolver was seized. On questioning them, it is revealed that it was given to them by the petitioner, who is the 4th accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the said revolver. Though the police conducted a search in his house, nothing could be seized which will incriminate the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is only a blacksmith and he is not making any revolver. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the case diary would reveal the involvement of the petitioner. He was in possession of the article seized and he may be required for custodial interrogation. Ba No.4738/08 2 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner would be required for custodial interrogation and it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day. It is not possible to give such a direction, since it is against the dictum laid down in Pappachan vs. Muthu (2005 (2) KLT 76). The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl