Hameed A.K. vs State Of Kerala And Anr

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.409/2020 of Malappuram Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under

Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.08.2020, the investigating officer got discrete information regarding the functioning of a quarry without a

proper license, and accordingly the police officers conducted a search of the property in which the applicant also has share and recovered large

amounts of explosive substances stored in that place. On arrival of the police officers, five persons including the applicant allegedly fled away from the

scene and could not be apprehended. The applicant approached this Court by filing BA No.7031/2020 for anticipatory bail. The said application was

dismissed by this Court on 18.11.2020 directing the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, he surrendered before the

investigating officer on 30.11.2020 and was remanded to judicial custody and continues to remain in custody.

The applicant states that the property belongs to the applicant and his brother. By virtue of an agreement, he was given the right to possess the

property and was also granted the right to enter into a sale agreement regarding the property. Earlier there was a quarry conducted by the applicant's

brother. But the license was not transferred to his name and as per the agreement, it does not indicate whether the applicant had the right to conduct

the quarrying activities in the property. Under the circumstances, it has to be believed that he did not have any valid license and he also does not have

any claim for that. The property as per the agreement was in the possession of the applicant and it seems that he had stored a large amount of

explosive substances without any valid license in the property and therefore his complicity is established. The applicant states that he has no criminal

antecedents and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation and therefore he may not be detained for a further time.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. But it is stated that the source of the explosive substances

could not be ascertained and the other persons who were involved in conducting the quarry are yet to be apprehended and therefore the applicant may

not be released on bail at this stage.

After hearing the submissions made on both sides and going to the records available, I found that the applicant had been arrested and all his

equipments in the quarry had been taken into custody. The explosive substances also were seized. The applicant could have been subjected to

custodial interrogation, but it does not appear that he was subjected to any custodial interrogation. Just because the other accused who were present

there at that time are not apprehended does not mean that the applicant has to be incarcerated till they are apprehended. Applicant is a person without

any criminal antecedents and I find no reason to incarcerate him for a longer time.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final

report whichever is earlier.

(2) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

(3) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.