Madhya Pradesh High Court
Irfan Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341
1 MCRC-41567-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41567 of 2024
IRFAN KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Keshav Pathak - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for the State.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.195/2024 at Police Station Badarwas District Shivpuri under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and further all consequential proceedings arising out of it.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-06-2024, Ravi Chauhan, posted as Inspector in Badarwas police station, reached the town along with Tehsildar Badarwas Pradeep Bhargava, from where the Tehsildar took along witnesses Firoz Khan and Shakir Khan, the Tehsildar informed them that some people were making fireworks on the banks of a drain in the forest of Dhamantuk and to verify the information, they reached the banks of a drain in the forest of village Dhamantuk, they heard the sound of some people talking, they surrounded them and tried to catch them, but they took Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 2 MCRC-41567-2024 advantage of the darkness and managed to escape, the accompanying witnesses identified the fleeing people in the light of the vehicle and torch and said that they were Shahid Khan son of Munna Khan and Irfan Khan, residents of Badarwas, explosive material about 40 kg of soda, about 30 kg of wick masala, 20 pieces of cotton, about 25 kg of powdered gunpowder like white powder, Coal about 07 kg, aluminium powder about 10 kg, sulphur like about 04 kg and material for making fireworks along with paper shells were found kept in separate plastic bags, worth about Rs 50,000/-. As the said material was kept carelessly at one place, the act of the accused was found punishable under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, hence the Tehsildar present on the spot arrested the accused.
3. After duly seizing the material in the light of a torch in front of witnesses, a seizure panchnama was prepared and since the seized material was explosive, it was handed over to Balaji Enterprises (Magazine House) village Bamor by issuing a letter and was kept in the magazine for safekeeping. Apart from the explosive material, a sack of cotton balls and a sack of paper shells along with material for making fireworks were brought back to the police station and a First Information Report was registered against the accused/applicants under Crime No. 195/2024 Section 4/5 Explosive Substances Act and the case was taken up for investigation. The police was eager to arrest the applicants due to which the applicants submitted an application for anticipatory bail before this Court on date-01- 08-24, while hearing the said anticipatory bail and looking at the facts, it was found by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the case registered against Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 3 MCRC-41567-2024 the applicants by the police under Section-4/5 of the Explosives Act-1908, prima facie on the basis of the seized material, the provisions of the said Act are not reflected against the applicants and only on the basis of the seized material, it has been clearly mentioned in Section-4 under the definition of explosives defined in the Explosives Act 1984 against the applicants and the said Under the Explosives Act 1984 as defined in Section 4, the material seized from the applicants can only be used for manufacturing fireworks, therefore, under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, a provision has been made for punishment of imprisonment for 03 years or fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000/- or both for the said offence. In view of the above facts, the Hon'ble High Court passed an order for the release of the applicants on the anticipatory security application. A true copy of the order dated 01-08-2024 passed by this Court is enclosed as Annexure P-2. Since prima facie the provisions of Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 under case number 195/2024 registered by the police against the applicants are not reflected against the applicants, therefore, a petition is being presented before this Court on behalf of the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. / 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing of crime number 195/2024 registered by Police Station Badarwas against the applicants and all the proceedings arising out of it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at first glance, the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not reflected. The definition of Explosives Act has been mentioned in Section 2 of the Explosives Act, according to which "(b) The expression 'special category Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 4 MCRC-41567-2024 explosive substance' shall include Research Development Explosive (RDX), Erythritol Tetra Nitrate (PETN), High Temperature Explosive (HMX), Trinitro Toluene (TNT), Low Temperature Plastic Explosive (LTPE), Combustion Explosive (CE) (2,4,6 Phenyl Methyl Nitramine) (PEK-1) and RDX/TNT combination and other similar explosives and their combinations and remote control devices causing explosion and any other substance or combination thereof which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of this Act."
5. It is clear from the above definition that the material seized by the investigating officer at the scene of the incident does not fall in the category of explosive substance given in the above mentioned definition, hence the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not prima facie applicable against the applicants.
6. According to the prosecution itself, the goods seized by the investigating officer from the scene of the incident were as follows: Soda about 40 kg, Batti Masala about 30 kg, 20 pieces of cotton bales, gunpowder-like whitener about 25 kg, ground coal. About 7 kg of explosives, about 10 kg of aluminium powder, about 4 kg of sulphur-like substance and material for making fireworks along with paper shells were found kept in separate plastic bags. The said seizure was also made by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence and the applicants were not present at the place of occurrence nor has any material been seized from the applicants from the place of occurrence been reported by the Investigating Officer.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 5 MCRC-41567-2024
7. The material which has been seized from the place of occurrence by the prosecution itself, the said material has been defined in Section-4 of the Explosives Act-1984. The definition of explosive has been clearly defined in sub-section-4 (d) of Section-4, according to which Section- (4) (d) of the Explosives Act-1984 - explosive, means gunpowder, nitroglycerin, nitroglycol, guncotton, dinitro-toluene, tri nitro toluene, picric acid, di-nitro- phenol, tri nitro resorcinol (styphinic acid), cyclo trimethylene tri nitramine, penta erythritol-tetranitrate, tetryl lytrologuanidine, lead azide, lated styforminate, mercury or other metal or fulminate, diazo-dinitro-phenol, colored fireworks or other substance, whether it is a chemical mixture or a mixture of substances, whether Any substance, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, used or manufactured for producing practical effects by means of explosives or for pyrotechnics, and for fog-signals, fireworks, pots, rockets, shock caps, explosive inductors, cartridges, ammunition of all kinds and such like Every adaptation or preparation of explosive as defined in section 10 includes, as per the definition mentioned in Section 4 (4-b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, the goods which are said to be seized by the prosecution from the place of incident fall under the category of Section 4 (b) mentioned above. If any person violates the said Act (explosives), then Section 9 (b) of the Act- 1984 provides for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000/- or with both. But Section 4 (b) of the Explosives Act, 1984 also does not appear prima facie to be applicable against the applicants because according to the prosecution itself, the material seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 6 MCRC-41567-2024 Officer was not stated to have been seized from the applicants. The investigating officer himself has clearly mentioned in his first information report that "We have received information that some people are making fireworks on the banks of a drain in the forest of Dhamanduk. The investigating officer himself clearly mentioned in his first information report that he had received information that some people were manufacturing fireworks.
8. Whereas the Explosives Act, 1908 does not mention anywhere that any material which Any substance that falls under explosive category will be used for making fireworks. From which it is clear that the case registered by the Investigating Officer of the case against the applicants under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, does not prima facie fall under the definition mentioned in the Act itself. According to the prosecution itself, it has been mentioned in its first information that they have received information that some people are making fireworks on the bank of the drain in the forest of Dhamantuke and on the basis of the said information, when they reached the bank of the drain in the forest of village Dhamantuke to verify it, they heard the voice of some people talking, they camped there and tried to catch them, but they took advantage of the darkness and managed to escape. The accompanying witnesses, after identifying the fleeing people with the help of the vehicle's light and torchlight, told that they were Shaheed Khan son of Munna Khan and Irfan Khan, residents of Badarwas.
9. According to the prosecution itself, the persons who were running away from the scene of the incident were identified by the investigating Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 7 MCRC-41567-2024 officer from behind with the help of the light and torch of the vehicle. It is common knowledge that if a person runs, his face will be in the direction of running and if he is seen with a torch or any other light, he can be seen only from behind, he or his face cannot be seen from behind. Therefore, the prosecution's story that the applicants were identified from behind while fleeing the scene using the vehicle's light and torchlight appears unnatural at first glance. As per the prosecution itself, the material seized from the scene of occurrence has not been seized from the applicants, therefore, the material mentioned in the definition of explosive mentioned in Section 4 (d) of the Explosives Act, 1984 has also not been shown to have been seized from the applicants, therefore, prima facie, Section 4 (d) of the Explosives Act, 1984 is also not reflected against the applicants. The main reason for this is that, neither the applicants have been arrested from the scene of occurrence nor the material seized by the Investigating Officer has been seized from the applicants, therefore, prima facie, neither the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1908 nor Section 4 (d) of the Explosives Act, 1984 are not reflected against the applicants. The applicant is a labourer and is the only member who earns his living and supports his family by working as a labourer. The police were about to arrest the applicants, due to which the applicants filed a case under Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble High Court.
10. An application for anticipatory was filed under Section 438, which was registered as MCRC 29434/2024 before this Court and was listed for hearing on 01-08-2024. On August 24, 2018, this Court, while hearing the said anticipatory bail application, observed that the case registered against Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 8 MCRC-41567-2024 the applicants by the police under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1908, prima facie did not reflect the provisions of the said Act against the applicants on the basis of the seized material. The definition of explosive as defined in Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1984, is clearly stated against the applicants on the basis of the seized material alone. The material seized from the applicants under Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1984, as defined in Section 4, can only be used for the manufacture of fireworks. Therefore, Section 9B of the Explosives Act provides for a punishment of three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to ₹5,000, or both for the said offence. Considering the above facts, the Hon'ble High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants.
11. Hence, the present petition be allowed and the order be passed to the quash Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and all the proceedings related to it under Crime No. 195/2024 registered at Police Station Badarwas, District Shivpuri.
12. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that The FSL report clearly opines that the seized materials could form an explosive substance composition. Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 have a wife amplitude, covering not only finished explosives but also materials intended for causing explosion. The issues raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed facts, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record with due care.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 9 MCRC-41567-2024
14. From perusal of the records, this court finds that the FSL report clearly states that " The ions and elements detected in Exhibits - "A1", "B1" ,"C1", "D1", "E1" and "F1" could form the explosive substance composition".
15. So far as question of statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the BNSS is concerned, it is a matter of trial and trial Court is the most appropriate forum to decide and marshal the credibility of the statements of witnesses.
16. Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Criminal Penalty Statute) Definition of "explosive substance" - Includes materials for making any explosive substance; apparatus, machine, implement or material used or intended to be used or adapted for causing or aiding in an explosion; and any part thereof.
Section 3 - Causing explosion likely to endanger life or property- Punishment: Imprisonment may extend to life where life or serious property damage is likely, even if no injury occurs.
Section 4 - Attempt to cause explosion; making/keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property - Includes acts done with malicious intent or conspires to do so; mere possession with unlawful intent is punishable whether explosion occurs or not.
Section 5 - Possession under suspicious circumstances - Possession of explosives in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion attracts punishment unless lawful purpose is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 10 MCRC-41567-2024 shown.
Section 6 - Abetment or aiding or accessory liability.
Section 7 - Trial cannot proceed without prior consent/sanction of the authority prescribed (e.g., District Magistrate/Central Government).
17. The Explosives Act, 1884 (Regulatory Statute) This Act regulates the licensing, manufacture, storage, transport, import, export, and sale of explosives or materials that may be explosive. It is primarily regulatory (not penal like the 1908 Act):
Definitions and scope - "Explosives" include broad categories of hazardous substances.
Licensing regime - Manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import/export require licences/permits under rules.
Safety/inspection/search powers - Government and authorised officers have powers to inspect, search, and seize for compliance.
Offences - Unlicensed possession/use, contravention of licence conditions, unsafe storage, etc. (Sections such as 9B/9C address specific contraventions).
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1987 SC 350] has held that for an offence under Section 5, the prosecution must prove the (i) Conscious possession and Circumstances Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 11 MCRC-41567-2024 giving rise to reasonable suspicion of unlawful object and once it is prove, the burden shifts to the accused explain the lawful possession. In the instant case, the FSL report itself, states possession of explosive that too may produce harmful substances.
19. The contention regarding identification of the accused and absence of personal recovery involves appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
20. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub , AIR 1980 SC 1111 , has cautioned that courts should not embark upon a meticulous examination of evidence at the threshold. Therefore, marshaling of the statements of the witnesses is not permissible.
21. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has categorically held that where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence, the High Court should not interfere at the stage of investigation or trial.
22. Now going into the applicability of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 defines "explosive substance" in a very wide manner , including not only completed explosives but also materials, apparatus or substances intended to be used for causing an explosion. The Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) , held that possession of explosive Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 12 MCRC-41567-2024 substances under suspicious circumstances, coupled with surrounding facts, is sufficient to attract Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
23. In Mohd. Afzal v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2003) 6 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed that actual explosion is not a sine qua non , and preparation or possession with intent is sufficient for attracting the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act.
24. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the FSL report specifically states:
"The ions and elements detected in Exhibits A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 and F1 could form explosive substance composition." At this State, the FSL opinion prima facie supports the prosecution case that the seized materials were capable of forming an explosive substance, bringing the case within the ambit of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Supreme Court in the case o f T.K. Gopal Vs. State of Karnataka, [(2000) 6 SCC 169] has held that expert opinion is a relevant piece of evidence, and its probative value is a matter to be assessed at trial.
25. So far as the question of the anticipatory bail is concerned, the bail order relied upon by the petitioners was passed considering the limited scope of Section 438 CrPC. Observations made therein are prima facie and cannot be treated as final adjudication on merits.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 . The defence raised by the petitioners involves Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1341 13 MCRC-41567-2024 disputed questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated during trial. No case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC is made out.
27. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that all observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE Vishal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VISHAL UPADHYAY Signing time: 1/15/2026 11:22:42 AM