Jharkhand High Court
Rejaul Karim @ Kiran Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2023
---------
Rejaul Karim @ Kiran Sk., aged about 36 years, son of Nurul Islam, resident of village-Nayani Gangadda, P.O. Muraroi, P.S. Muraroi, District- Birbhum (W.B.). ...... 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. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP
-----------
th
04/Dated: 12 April, 2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in B.P. No. 28 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail in connection with Maheshpur Raddipur O.P. P.S. Case No.12 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire allegation levelled in the FIR does not constitute the offence said to have been committed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
Such submission has been made on the ground that the case has been instituted for alleged recovery of 1900 pieces of Detonators and a red colour Glamour motorcycle bearing No. WB 54 J 5742.
3. So far as the recovery of motorcycle is concerned, submission has been made that the said motorcycle is not owned by the appellant and so far as the recovery of Detonators to the extent of 1900 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 appellant 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.
24. While on the other hand, Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned APP has submitted by referring to the allegation levelled in the FIR wherein recovery of 1900 pieces of Detonators has been shown to have recovered from the possession of the appellant with red colour Glamour motorcycle and hence, there is direct allegation of the appellant since he is named in the FIR, 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 appellant, 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 1900 pieces of Detonators have been recovered, there is no other allegation levelled.
9. 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 06.02.2023 requires interference.
10.Accordingly, the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in B.P. No. 28 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
11.In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
312.Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released from judicial custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Pakur in connection with Maheshpur Raddipur O.P. P.S. Case No.12 of 2023.
13.The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Saurabh/-