Recovery of arms and ammunition

Prosecution had alleged that two pistols and two hand grenades were recovered from the possession of accused-appellant, which were sealed in cloth parcels and were signed by the official recovery witnesses

No signatures were visible on the sealed parcels, when confronted at the time of evidence

Record showed that recovered explosive device was retained for fifteen days from the alleged date of recovery without being made safe

Recovered hand grenades were found to be without detonators

Circumstances established that prosecution failed to prove the recovery of arms and ammunitions against the accused-appellants.

Matter of accused was not a case of mere recovery of some illicit firearm, rather it was far aggravated form thereof as the accused had devised a number of cavities in the vehicle to conceal the armoury

Act of accused of transporting a pile of prohibited bore weapons and ammunition was not to be looked at as an offence in routine

Ammunition in question, if was not recovered would have been used against public tranquility

Circumstances linked the accused with the commission of offence

Charge against accused was heinous in nature and in such like cases of public tranquility, court should limit itself to exercise its discretion for grant of bail

Accused did not succeed in establishing his case being one of further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was declined in circumstances.