Mister Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10570 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mister Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 440 of 2024
         Mister Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Samim Mian @ Samim
         Ansari, resident of village-Kolhabdar, P.O. and P.S. Shikaripara, District-
         Dumka.
                                                                    ..... Appellant
                              Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                                 ...... Respondent
                                        ----
      CORAM:        HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

---

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.

----

I.A. No. 7288 of 2024 06/21.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. This appeal is already admitted and Trial Court Record has been received.

3. I.A. No. 7288 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of sentence and release the appellant on bail, during the pendency of this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted by judgment dated 27.06.2024 and sentenced by order dated 28.06.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in S.T. No. 195 of 2022. He further submits that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 4000/- for the offence under section 4 (1) of Explosive Substance Act and in default the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months. He submits that other sentences are also there in different sections however it was ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no allegation of attempt of explosion and in view of that section 4 of Explosive Substance Act is not attracted. He then submits that the said ammonium nitrate was being carried out on the motorcycle of appellant for the agriculture purpose. He further submits that P.W.6 who is seizure list witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the recovery from the appellant. He submits that P.W.7 has turned hostile and

P.W.8 is hearsay witness. He submits that the appellant has remained in custody for 11 months.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in absence of any valid document the said ammonium nitrate was being carried out. She submits that the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution.

7. Considering that the appellant has remained in custody for 11 months, there is no allegation of attempt of explosion, only allegation is said that the ammonium nitrate was being carried out on the motorcycle of appellant, P.W.6 who is seizure list witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the recovery from the appellant, P.W.7 has turned hostile and P.W.8 is hearsay witness, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the above named appellant is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in S.T. No. 195 of 2022.

8. The aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) Satyarthi