IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1009 of 2010() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.7105/2009 Dated 11/12/2009 CRIME NO. 242/2009 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- M.P.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. POCKER, MOOSAMKUNNIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA POST, THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010 ALONG WITH B.A. NO. 1010/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner had filed Bail application Nos. 7105 and 7106 of 2009 for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 242/2009 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District and Crime No. 77/2009 of Payyavoor Police Station, Kannur District. Those bail applications were dismissed by the common order dated 11.12.2009. For the same relief, which was prayed for in B.A. Nos.7105 and 7106/2009, the petitioner has filed these Bail Applications. 2. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 11.12.2009 is extracted below: “These Bail Applications are filed by M.P. Muhammed Kunhi, who is the second accused in Crime No.77/2009 of Payyavoor Police Station and the sole accused in Crime No.242/2009 of Sreekandapuram Police Station. The offence alleged in Crime No.77/2009 is under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, while the offence B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 2 alleged in Crime No. 242/2009 is under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14/7/2009, a search was conducted in a quarry owned by the first accused, P.D. John @ Thankachan. On such search, the police could find two fuse wires and 45 detonators. It was revealed that those explosive substances were given to the first accused by M.P. Muhammed Kunhi, the petitioner herein. It would appear that Payyavoor police gave information to Seekandapuram Police, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides and carries on business. On 4/11/2009, Crime No.242/2009 was registered before the Sreekandapuram Police Station. A search was conducted in a shop building in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was running a business under the name and style “National Fire Works” in the building. At the time when the police party reached there, the building was found locked. On enquiry to the neighbouring shop owner, he stated that key of the shop room was B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 3 handed over to him by the petitioner. The police opened that shop room and found key of another room in the same building. That room was also opened. In that room, large quantity of explosive substances were found. The police found 1148 detonators, 4.5 Kgs of fuse wire and more than 110 Kgs of Ammonium Nitrate. 3. The Investigating Officer could not arrest the petitioner as he was absconding. The petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail without disclosing the real facts. It is stated that the building, where from the explosive substances were recovered , does not belong to him. There are records to indicate that the room was taken on rent by the petitioner. Neighbouring shop owner has also given information that the room in question was in the possession of the petitioner. Necessary materials were collected by the investigating officer to show that the building in question is in the possession of the petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 4 serious in nature. Grant of anticipatory bail cannot be made in such cases, where large quantity of explosive substances were found in the possession of the accused. Discretionary relief under Section 438 cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Crime No.77/2009, anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.1 and that fact was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of Bail Application Nos.7105 and 7106/2009. Even if it were brought to the notice of the Court, the same order would have been passed, since the role played by the first accused and second accused are quite different and distinct. B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 5 I do not think that there is any justifiable reasons or grounds for entertaining a second round of applications for the same relief. Accordingly, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln