IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6015 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRMP.2785/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO.1043/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- M.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA VIHAR, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA(CRIME NO.1043/2008 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION),REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6015 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 304 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Rules 115, 152 and Section 9-B1(b) of Explosives Act, 1884. According to the prosecution, there was an explosion in the Vedipura of Ganapathi Temple and two persons succumbed to the injuries sustained in the explosion and one person was injured. The prosecution case is that the licensee kept more than 5 kg. of gun powder, which is permissible quantity and it is also suspected that Potassium Chlorite is also used, which is also not permitted. The licensee, a person who is managing the affairs of the Vedipura, and other persons have in furtherance of common intention has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and also various other offences under the Explosives Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in charge of Vedipura. He was only collecting B.A.6015 of 2008 2 amount for 'vedi vazhipadu' and a receipt, Annexure I, is produced to establish his role. It is also submitted that even if the entire case is accepted, the offence will not constitute one under Section 304 I.P.C. and it will only attract offence under Section 304A of I.P.C., which is a bailable offence. Therefore anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there are statements of the witnesses available in the case diary will reveal that the petitioner was in actual management of the affairs of the Vedipura and it is not correct to say that he has no role in the act committed. The nature of allegations made are such that it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that as per Section 299, if any person causes death by doing any act with the knowledge of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. The knowledge is sufficient to attract offence under Section 299 of I.P.C. and Section 304 of I.P.C., but intention is not a must. B.A.6015 of 2008 3 On hearing both sides, I find that the investigation is at the initial stage. The petitioner's interrogation will be required for the purpose of investigation. It will be early for this Court to conclude that the offence committed is not under Section 304 of I.P.C. and that it is only under Section 304A of I.P.C., particularly at the initial stage of investigation. Considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac