Jharkhand High Court
Md. Alfaran Alam @ Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 698 of 2023
Md. Alfaran Alam @ Ali --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. Order No.07/ Dated 23rd August, 2023 The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 106 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1, Sahibganj in connection with Boria (J) P.S. Case No. 57 of 2022 registered under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj whereby and where under, the appellant's prayer for pre-arrest bail has been rejected.
2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and no specific allegation has been levelled in the entire F.I.R., if it is taken in entirety. It has been further contended that no incriminating material as also explosive substance has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the aforesaid premises has submitted that it is fit case were the privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be granted.
3. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail and has submitted by referring to the case diary where in specific allegation has been surfaced during course of investigation that he is the person who is controlling the mining operation in the entire area. It has also come that only on his permission illegal mining transportation of the explosive substance for the purpose of mining was being carried out. Learned A.P.P. on the aforesaid premises submitted that if the learned Trial Court has rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail by the impugned order, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Reference has been made to paragraph 24 of the case diary wherein it is mentioned that at the instance of the appellant one vehicle bearing no. BR10GA 3421 loaded -2- with explosive substance was being carried which was intercepted on secret information wherein the name of the appellant was disclosed by the driver regarding his complicity in the matter.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the impugned order as also the case diary. On consideration thereof, more particularly, the statement as recorded at para 24 of the case diary wherein the driver namely Jamshed of the vehicle bearing registration no. BR10GA 3421 has disclosed the name of the appellant about his complicity in the illegal transportation of the explosive substance for the purpose of illegal mining, this Court, is of the view that this is not a fit case where privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be granted to the appellant.
5. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
6. In view thereof, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty