IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4677 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.217/2008 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. NAWAS, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, THAIKKANDIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVIL P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SALI, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, ILLATHU HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU P.O., VADAKARA. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.217 OF 2008 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4677 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A. No.7189/2008 for the same relief which is prayed for in this Bail Application. That Bail Application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as per the order dated 10/02/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 10/02/2009 is extracted below: “ Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence are under Sections 27 of Arms Act and 102 of Cr.P.C. According to prosecution, a Qualis car and a motorcycle were found parked by the side of a road on 11.8.2008 and on search of same, sword, chopper etc. were found inside the car. On investigation, it is revealed that petitioners have kept the weapons in the car for the purpose of commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made, First petitioner had lodged a complaint against one Jaleel B.A. No. 4677/2009 2 and the FIR in the said crime is Annexure-I. The said Jaleel insisted on to settle the case and since first petitioner was not amenable, he was threated with dire consequences. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case at the distance of the said Jaleel. Petitioners may be grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act will not be attracted since there is no evidence to show that petitioners have used any prohibited arms in contravention of Section 7. The mere possession of prohibited arms will not be an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of W.B. (AIR 1973 SC 2288), it is submitted. Therefore, petitioners are not liable for non-bailable offence, it is contended. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on investigation, it is B.A. No. 4677/2009 3 revealed that all the accused had kept the articles in the vehicle and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that even if Section 27 of Arms Act is not attracted the allegation made in this case will clearly fall under Section 25(1A) of the Act. If a person is in possession of any prohibited arm in contravention of Section 7 of the Act, he will be liable under Section 25(1A) of the Act and it is a non- bailable offence. Section 7 prohibits a person from possession of any prohibited arm. Therefore, the wrong quoting of section will not be of any help to petitioners, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that investigation is in the initial stage and charge-sheet has not been laid. Any misquoting of section will not give any benefit to petitioners. Considering the serious nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 11.8.2008 and petitioners are not available for arrest and interrogation. Hence, the following order is passed: B.A. No. 4677/2009 4 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed.” I do no find any ground to entertain a second application for anticipatory bail. There is no change of circumstance or any other circumstance warranting the filing of the second application for anticipatory bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm