Jharkhand High Court
Chetlal Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 282 of 2023
1. Chetlal Prasad
2. Ranjan Kumar .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... ....Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
--------
Order No.04/dated 12.04.2023
The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the
order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-VII, Hazaribag in B.P. No. 60 of 2023, arising out of
Barkatha P.S. Case No. 249 of 2021, registered under Sections
341/342/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/5
of Explosive Substance Act whereby and whereunder prayer for
bail of the appellants, namely, Chetlal Prasad & Ranjan Kumar
has been rejected.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
entire allegation levelled in the F.I.R. does not constitute the
offence said to have been committed under Section 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
3. Such submission has been made on the ground that the
case has been instituted for alleged recovery of 10 pieces of
Detonator and a grey colour Honda SP 125 bearing registration
No. JH02BE 5275.
4. So far as the recovery of motorcycle is concerned,
submission has been made that the said motorcycle is not
owned by the appellants and so far as the recovery of
Detonators to the extent of 10 pieces is concerned, it has been
submitted that the Detonators cannot be said to be an explosive
substance since the explosive substance can be said to be
explosive substance which itself causes explosion but here, the
Detonators cannot cause explosion itself, hence, the offence
which has been said to have committed by the appellants under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act cannot be said
to have attracted the ingredient thereof. But, the learned trial
court has not appreciated the aforesaid fact while passing
impugned order.
5. While on the other hand, Mr.Vineet Kumar Vashistha,
learned A.P.P. has submitted by referring to the allegation
levelled in the F.I.R. wherein recovery of 10 pieces of Detonator
has been shown to have recovered from the possession of the
appellants with grey colour Honda SP 125 and hence, there is
direct allegation of the appellants since they are named in the
F.I.R., therefore, the learned trial court after taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact has rejected the prayer for bail,
therefore, the same may not be interfered with.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on
its appreciation, it is evident by going through the definition of
the Explosive Substance wherein, the Detonators has not been
shown to have explosive substance.
7. This Court has also gone through the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this context having been produced by the
learned counsel for the appellants, rendered in "Lopchand
Naruji Jat and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat", [2004 (3) East Cr
C 226 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with
the provision of Section 4(d) of the Explosive Substance Act
came to a finding that an explosive substance can be said to be
explosive substance if it explodes on its own.
8. This Court, also in "Kamal Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of
Jharkhand", (2013) 2 JBCJ 234 after putting reliance upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lopchand
Naruji Jat and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (supra), has
considered that the Detonators cannot be considered to be
explosive substance since it is used to trigger the explosive
substance.
9. In view thereof, save and except the offence said to have
been committed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substance Act on the ground that 10 pieces of Detonators have
been recovered, there is no other allegation levelled.
10. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the
case, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that the order dated 10.02.2023 requires
interference.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the
Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh in B.P.No.60 of 2023 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
12. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to
be released from judicial custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No.
249 of 2021.
14. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
