Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.645 of 2014 of the Viyyur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(1) of the Explosive Substances Act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that the petitioner was found engaged in quarrying operation using explosives without proper licence or other authority and on seeing the police, he pushed them away and escaped.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that the 1st accused was granted relief by the Sessions Judge.
4. I have gone through the order and find that the 1st accused was granted relief for the reason that the only allegation against him was that he is the owner of the property where the quarry is situated. I am not at the question whether the 1st accused should have been granted that relief or not. The case of
B.A. No. 3371 of 2014
-: 2 :-
the petitioner stands on a different footing. It is no answer to say that the petitioner is only an employee of the 1st accused. He has used explosives without authority. The request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed. The petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating the case on 28.05.2014. On such surrender in case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the date of arrest itself.
Application is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv