AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime NO.1612/2020 of Ranni Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under
Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.09.2020 at about 7.15 PM, the Sub Inspector of Police intercepted an Alto Car being driven by the 1st
accused with the applicant as a passenger. On interception of the car, the applicant allegedly fled away from there leaving behind a country-made
gun. The 1st accused was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. The statement of several persons were recorded, which indicated that the
applicant was involved in hunting of wild boar and that the country- made gun was used for that purpose.
The applicant states that the allegations are all untrue and that he had entrusted his motorcycle for repair at a workshop and on seeing an Alto Car
coming along with the road, he hitchhiked the car along with three others, including the 1st accused, who was driving the car. In between the car was
intercepted, the two persons sitting in the back seat fled away from there, along with them, not knowing what was happening, the applicant also fled
away. He has absolutely nothing to do with the gun, which was recovered from the car, and therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer points out towards the antecedents of
the applicants, although no crime has so far been registered against him. It is stated that the applicant was the person, who was holding the gun and he
abandoned the gun while fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. It is also stated that the 1st accused was arrested and his statement was
recorded. The applicant will have to be questioned regarding the acquisition of the gun, and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposes the application for anticipatory bail.
After having heard the submissions made by both sides, I find that there is no prosecution case regarding the two other persons in the car fleeing
away along with the applicant. If the applicant was only a hitchhiker in the car, there was no necessity for him to flee away from there on being
intercepted by the police. The fact that he fled away from there itself would indicate towards his involvement in the possession of the unlicensed
country-made gun. The prosecution will have to be given an opportunity to interrogate the applicant regarding the acquisition of the gun. Even though
the applicant does not have any recorded antecedents, statements of the witnesses indicate that he is involved in hunting of wild animals.
Under the above circumstances, the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and
recovery, if any, and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular
bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same day.