IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2670 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.76/09 OF EDACHERI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. MEYAKANDY ANOOP, S/O.MOHANDAS, KOROTH ROAD, AZHIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA. 2. SATHEESAN, S/O.SASIKUMAR, VELLACHALIL HOUSE, AZHIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA. 3. VAZHAYIL FASIL, S/O.HAMEED, AZHIYOOR DESOM, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDACHERI POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 2670 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.76/09 of Edacheri Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Section under the Arms Act was wrongly shown and that the correct Section is Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioners with the offences. I have perused the case diary. Prima facie the contention raised by the petitioners does not appear to be acceptable. The allegation is that on 19.2.2009 at about 1.30 AM, the petitioners and others were found travelling in a car which BA.2670/09 2 was intercepted and deadly weapons like sword, iron pipes etc. were found in the car. The petitioners ran away. It is alleged that the petitioners were carrying the aforesaid weapons for committing offences. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked in favour of the petitioners. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE vgs.