The prima facie evidence was available against the appellant and as he was found in possession of the fire arms, the learned Special Judge has rightly number used the discretion to enlarge the appellant on bail and we also see numberreason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge in appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the POTA.
Appellant was arrested in companynection with POTA Case No.12 of 2003 arising out of ICR No.6 of 2003 of the DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under IPC, Arms Act and POTA.
The bail application was rejected primarily on the ground that the appellant was found in possession of companyntry made revolver and foreign made pistols and undisputedly same was recovered from his possession.
The joint panchnama, which was prepared also mentions about the 10 live cartridges which were recovered from another accused Mohd.
With regard to the statement of companyaccused, which was recorded under section 32 of the POTA, save and except the statement recorded under section 32 of the POTA, further companyroboration was also forthcoming, Thus, the Court has to look into the entire material which was available against the accused.
An application for bail was filed in terms of Section 49 6 and 7 of POTA.
In view of the reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court for rejecting the bail application, we are number inclined to interfere with the appeal.
Ten live cartridges were also recovered from another companyaccused.
The panchnama in respect thereof was prepared.
