Jharkhand High Court
Narayan Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 May, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 520 of 2023
Narayan Saw ........... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .......Respondent.
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shabina Parween, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
----------------------------
th
03/Dated: 19 May, 2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 28th March, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in A.B.P. No.156 of 2023 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.32 of 2023 registered under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, whereby and whereunder, the appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the appellant along with others found to be involved in illegal mining of blue stones on an area of 15 acres of land, over which 25-30 wells about 600 feet each had been dug. It is further alleged that from the place of occurrence 32 generator sets, 22 compressor machines, 11 machines for water removal/suction, 14 air machines and 25 suction pipes etc. were recovered. It is also alleged that 155 pieces of power gel and 165 2 pieces of electric detonators were also recovered from the place of occurrence.
3. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that even accepting the entire prosecution case to be correct then also no case is made out under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Such submission has been made on the basis of the meaning of the definition of the Explosive Substance, as per the definition contained in Section 4(d) of the Explosives Act. It has been contended that the recovery of power gel and electric detonators can only construed to be the explosive and not the explosive substance.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant on 11th May, 2023 and called for the case diary as also the criminal antecedent.
5. An opportunity was also granted to file counter affidavit and the same has been filed.
6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted by referring to the various paragraphs of the case diary that there is active involvement of the appellant in carrying out the illegal mining by using the power gel and electric detonators which were recovered from the spot. The complicity of the appellant has also been corroborated from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that other recovered articles from the spot has been dismantled.
7. In response to the submission made on behalf of the respondent-- State that other materials have been dismantled, learned counsel 3 appearing for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid recovery is part of another case which was instituted under the Indian Forest Act, as such, the same has got no bearing with the case in which the appellant is now seeking prayer for anticipatory bail.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the F.I.R, impugned order and the case diary.
9. It is evident from the F.I.R. that the case has been instituted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The reason behind inserting the aforesaid provision is the recovery of 155 pieces of power gel and 165 pieces of electric detonators. The fact about the power gel and electric detonators are not coming under the fold of the Explosive Substance Act within the meaning of Section 4(d) of the Explosives Act which has not been disputed by the respondent--State.
10. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedent except the case pertaining to the same issue which has been instituted by the forest official and even accepting the F.I.R. in entirety which has been instituted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act which carries the maximum punishment of seven years, deems it fit and proper to interfere with the order dated 28th March, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in A.B.P. No.156 of 2023.
4
11. Accordingly, the order dated 28th March, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in A.B.P. No.156 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.32 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit Pandey/-