IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1580 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2645/2009 0F PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION ................................ PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- ANAS, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ASHARAF, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAKADU KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN (THACHETH) SRI.N.C.MOHANAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.2645 OF 2009 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION). BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1580 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2645/2009 of Perumbavoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18/12/2009, on getting secret information that the petitioner was dealing with narcotic drugs, the police party went to the house of the accused. When they reached at the pathway near the house of the petitioner, on seeing the police party, the accused ran away after abandoning a small packet and a sword. Though the police party chased him, he could not be apprehended. On inspection of the packet, a quantity of 10 grams of ganja was found inside the packet. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the area in question is not a notified area under the Arms Act and therefore, the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act will not B.A. No. 1580 /2010 2 apply. It is also submitted that the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act alleged against the petitioner is a bailable offence. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted the following: The area is a notified area and therefore, Section 25 of the Arms Act will apply. The petitioner is involved in two crimes registered in the year 2008 and one crime registered in the year 2009, where the offences involved are under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner's father is involved in four cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that a notification is not necessary in respect of certain types of offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 6. If Section 25 of the Arms Act is not attracted, no non- bailable offence being involved in the case, this Court would not be justified in granting anticipatory bail. If the area is a notified area, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. The petitioner is not without remedy since he can establish his contention that the B.A. No. 1580 /2010 3 area is not a notified area. When the petitioner is arrested and produced before court, the question would naturally arise as to what is the offence alleged against him and whether a notification is necessary in respect of that offence. The court will have to consider that question. For that purpose, it is not necessary to entertain the application for anticipatory bail. The fact that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature is also a circumstance compelling me to dismiss this application for anticipatory bail. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is dismissed with the above observations. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm