IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 509 of 2010 CRIME NO.643 OF 2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SURESH KUMAR @ SATHYAN,S/O.SREEDHARAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, RESHMI BHAVAN, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 509 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 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 fourth accused in Crime No.643 of 2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 3 and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner along with the third accused had filed B.A.No.5483 of 2009 for the same relief and that Bail Application was dismissed by this Court as per the order dated 30.9.2009. On verification, the submission was found to be correct. 4. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought one day's time to get instructions. Today, an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner is filed, in which, it is stated that he belongs to a poor family and that he is a coolie. The circumstances in which it so B.A. NO.509 OF 2010 :: 2 :: happened that the dismissal of the earlier Bail Application was not mentioned in the present Bail Application, have been attempted to be explained in the affidavit. I am not fully satisfied with the case put forward by the petitioner for not disclosing the truth in the Bail Application. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Bail Application in these circumstances. Permission is granted and the Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/