IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1032 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRMP.216/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA CRIME NO. 37/2010 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYNAD DISTRICT .................... PEETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- E.P.SHOUKATH, S/O.MUHAMMED, EZHUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, BAIRAKUPPA P.O., H.D.KOTTA, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE : ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1032 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 25.02.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by one E.P.Shoukath, Son of Muhammed, Ezhupothiyil house, Bairakuppa P.O., H.D.Kotta, Karnataka State. He is accused No.2 in Crime No.37 of 2010 of Ambalavayal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 9-B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 5A of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. On getting information that explosive substances were kept in the house of accused No.3, the police party searched his house. Accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2. 11,500 detonators kept in 115 boxes were found in the house. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were arrested. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.1 and 3 were B.A. No. 1032 of 2010 2 released on bail on the same date by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. 4. It would appear that the first accused stated before police that he purchased the explosives from one Shoukath of Mysore. It is also stated that the first accused had connection with Shoukath while he was at Kalpetta. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of mistaken identity. The petitioner, Shoukath is not the Shoukath mentioned by accused No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to appear before the investigating officer on any date fixed by the court. So that it could be verified whether he is the person who is stated to be the person who supplied explosives to accused No.1. It is submitted that the presence of accused No.1 also could be ensured before the investigating officer on that day. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that such a course can be adopted before disposing of the application for anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating B.A. No. 1032 of 2010 3 officer on 10.3.2010 at 9 A.M. The petitioner shall produce sufficient evidence to prove his identity before the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall ensure the presence of the first accused before the investigating officer on 10.3.2010 at 9 A.M. Post on 15.3.2010. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner will not be arrested till then in connection with Crime No.37 of 2010 of Ambalavayal Police Station. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigation order.” Hand over copy to both sides. 2. In the order dated 25.02.2010, in paragraph 3, it is mentioned that accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2. This is an error; accused No.1 is the son of accused No.3. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 25.02.2010. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. B.A. No. 1032 of 2010 4 There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln