IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3401 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.154/2010 OF KOLOVALLUR POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONER (S):/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- RASHEED, 24 YEARS, S/O.AHMED HAJI, KOYILOTH HOUSE, CENTRAL POILOOR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.154/2010 KOLOVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3401 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This is the second application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. According to prosecution, on 19.3.2010, at abut 6 pm., petitioner (A1) along with 6 others were found in a vacant building and on seeing the police, they ran away. Country bomb and articles required for manufacture of the bomb were seized from the building. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that only because the motor cycle of the petitioner was taken into custody from a nearby place, petitioner is implicated in the offence. Motor cycle was kept there, since petitioner's grandmother was sick and she had to be taken to hospital. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor pointed out in the earlier application for anticipatory bail petitioner raised a contention that petitioner was implicated due to political enemity etc. Now the petitioner is taking a different B.A. No.3401/2010 2 stand. It is also submitted by him that the incident occurred not due to political enemity and he is not a worker of I.U.M.L., as claimed by him in the earlier petition for anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, and on considering the serious nature of allegations made, I think that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I had already come to such a conclusion in the earlier order. The incident happened as early as on 19.3.2010 and petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime by petitioner will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.