IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2178 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.303/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- NIZAM., SON OF ABDUL MANAF, NIZAM MANZIL, THARATTA, VADASSERI KONAM P.O., CHRUNNIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY, SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL, SRI.NIYAS A.SALAM. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKAULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2178 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. Petitioner(A1) hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused nos. 2 to 5 to hurl country bomb against the house of de facto complainant, with whom, first accused was on enmical terms. Accordingly, accused no.3 supplied materials for manufacture bomb to 4th accused, who in turn manufactured the country bomb. Thereafter, accused nos. 2, 4 and 5 hurled bomb at the de facto complainant's house and caused damage to the building. The incident happened as early as on 13.03.2010. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the first accused. He has not gone to the place of occurrence and he is not involved in the incident. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused nos. 2 to 5 were arrested and they were B.A. No. 2178 / 2010 2 questioned by the police. It is revealed that it was at the instance of the first accused that the offence was committed. First accused is on enmical terms with the de facto complainant, and arrest of first accused is needed for ascertaining the details of conspiracy etc. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner, particularly, the motive for commission of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, which is required for an effective investigation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln