IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 964 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 180/07 OF VETTILAPPARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- C.I.PAUL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. CHIRAPPANATH ITTIRA, VETTILAPPARA DESOM PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPUAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 964 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations of commission of offences punishable under the Arms Act. The Forest officials allegedly searched the premises in the possession of the petitioner and recovered various articles. In respect of the articles which offend the Forest Act, proceedings are continuing under the Forest Act. But in the course of such search they came across what is described as “parts of a gun”. The same was taken into custody by the forest officials, but as they were unable to investigate into the said offence under the Arms Act, a report was submitted before the police, on the basis of which this crime has been registered alleging commission of the offence under the Arms Act. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations even if accepted in toto, cannot justify any indictment B.A.No. 964 of 2008 2 for any offence under the Arms Act. Even a cursory reading of the F.I.R. must convince this Court that what is seized is not a serviceable fire arm and is only discarded and useless parts of a fire arm. The learned counsel in these circumstances submits that the petitioner does not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and incarceration on the basis of such allegations. 3. The learned Prosecutor was requested to read over to this Court the description of the fire arm allegedly seized. The same has been read over to me. What is recovered is a part of a gun rusted also. I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations now. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The learned Prosecutor fairly does not oppose the application. Subject to appropriate conditions, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, I am satisfied. 4. In the result: (1) This application is allowed. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 B.A.No. 964 of 2008 3 Cr.P.C. (a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 26.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 27.2.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 26.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. (d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 26.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail B.A.No. 964 of 2008 4 on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.2.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm