Jharkhand High Court
Chetlal Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 64 of 2023
1. Chetlal Prasad.
2. Ranjan Kumar.
3. Sajan Kumar .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
--------
For the Appellant :Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate.
For the State :Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
For the Informant :Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
--------
Order No.04/dated 20.04.2023
It require to refer herein that the instant appeal
although has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf
of the three named accused persons, namely, Chetlal Prasad,
Ranjan Kumar and Sajan Kumar. But in course of pendency of
instant appeal, since, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar have
been apprehended, therefore, the instant application is not
being pressed on behalf of Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar.
Mr. Shikarwar, learned Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the instant appeal may be confined only with the
appellant No.3, namely, Sajan Kumar.
2. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21 (4) of
the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against
the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-VII, Hazaribag in A.B.P.No. 1595 of 2022 whereby and
whereunder the prayer for release of the appellant
apprehending his arrest in connection with 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 has been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that omnibus and vague allegation has been levelled
against the appellant. It has been submitted by referring to the
seizure memo that 10 pieces of detonator has been recovered.
Submission has been made that detonator cannot be said to be
explosive substance in independent capacity and taking the
same into consideration, this Court has granted the other co-
accused persons, namely, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar
the privilege of regular bail.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of
the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order
may be quashed and set aside so as to the appellant may be
granted privilege of bail in case of his arrest.
5. While on the other hand, the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor as also Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel
appearing for the informant have submitted that there is
criminal antecedent against the appellant of the identical
nature of the cases. Further submission has been made that
the order 12.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 282 of
2023 upon which the reliance is being placed for consideration
of the grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant cannot be made
applicable herein, since, the appellant herein seeking benefit of
bail in apprehension of his arrest, when, the co-accused
persons, namely Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar have been
directed to be released on regular bail.
6. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the
parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions found
that this Court while considering the cases of the accused
namely, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar has directed to
release them on regular bail by taking into consideration the
fact that the recovery of detonator cannot in independent
capacity be said to be explosive substance as has been held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lopchand Naruji Jat and
Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, [2004 (3) East Cr. C. 226 (S.C.)]
and by this Court in case of Kamal Sheikh and Anr. vs. State
of Jharkhand, (2013) 2 JBCJ 234. However, the objection has
been raised that the aforesaid order cannot be given parity with
the facts of the case, since, the appellant herein is seeking
benefit of bail in apprehension of arrest where the aforesaid
judgment has been considered pertains to the grant of regular
bail. This Court after considering the said objection is of the
view that when illegal issue is being raised regarding the very
ingredient of offence as to whether a detonator can be said to be
an explosive substance within the meaning of the explosive
substance and when the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with by
holding therein that detonator cannot be, in independent
capacity, an explosive substance, therefore, the said finding is
also applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case.
7. Considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court with respect to the detonator to be treated not to be
explosive substance, therefore, this Court is of the view that so
far as the ingredient of the Section 4/5 of the Explosive
Substance Act is concerned, the same is also made applicable
herein also.
8. The other objection has been raised regarding the
criminal antecedent of the appellant but the said criminal
antecedent, as has been narrated by the informant, has been
instituted against informant himself by the appellant of levelling
identical nature of allegation as the allegation has been levelled
in the instant case.
9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
requires interference.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.11.2022
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in
A.B.P.No. 1595 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands
allowed.
12. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Sajan Kumar is
directed to surrender before the court below within a period of
four weeks from today and on his such surrender the learned
court-below shall release him on bail, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed
of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
