IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1917 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.316/2008 OF DHARMADOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VIPIN, S/O.LATE RAHULAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SOBHA HOUSE, USK ROAD, DHARMADOM AMSOM, DHARMADOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/ STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLICL PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.316 OF 2008 OF DHARMADOM POLICE STATION). SRI. K.S. SIVAKUAMR,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1917 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 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. 316/2008 of Dharmadom Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19/10/2008 at about 4.10 pm, on getting reliable information, the police party searched residential premises of the petitioner and seized 20 Country bombs of high explosive capacity kept in a container concealed in a ditch where the coconut sapling was planted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted relying on Annexure (1) that the place from where the bombs were allegedly recovered belongs to one Premachandran and property does not belong to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the place from where the bombs B.A. No.1917 of 2009 2 were recovered is close to the residential building of the petitioner, though that portion of the land may be included in the property of Premachandran. The residential building of Premachandran is on the northern side of the house of the petitioner. The offence is of serious nature. In the nature of the offence and other circumstances, custodial interrogation would be necessary. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm