Sadasivan Nair vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.337 of 2021 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(b), 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

The petitioner is running a quarry along with 8 other partners in Malappuram District. On 16.08.2021 the second respondent have conducted a search in the office of the petitioner a partner of the quarry and in the search it was found that explosive items were stored unauthorisedly, in the office room of this petitioner in such a way that it may endanger life or cause serious injury, and the same was seized by the respondent and a case was registered under the Explosive Substances Act.

The petitioner has submitted that he is holding a valid license to run the quarry and he is running the quarry along with 8 other partners. On the particular day there was heavy rain and so the explosive substances used for blasting rocks in the quarry were kept in his office but it was safely kept. Unfortunately one partner who is not in good terms with him informed the matter to the respondent and thus a search was conducted and thus, he has been booked for the offences. In fact to keep the items safe without spoiling it in rain, he has kept the same in the office room. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Now the marriage of his son is fixed to be conducted on 12.09.2021 and if he is arrested it will cause much inconvenience and difficulties to him as well as to his family and hence this application.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is true that this petitioner is conducting a quarry and he has obtained a licence for the same. Annexure II is the Explosive Licence for the period, which is valid upto 31.3.2022. Annexure III is the wedding card of his son. The first accused, the Manager of this petitioner who was present in the office at the time of search was arrested, but he has been released on bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very next day.

As the petitioner is holding a valid licence, I do not find materials to infer that custodial interrogation of this petitioner is inevitable in this case for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation.

Prima facie it appears that what is seized from the office room of the petitioner are only the articles in which he is holding licence as per Annexure II. Such being the case, I think that pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.