Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 9b explosive act in Md.Abid Hussain Ansari & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2012Matching Fragments
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 16.5.2002, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.249 of 1999, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, was rejected by the learned Court below, finding that there are ample prima facie evidence for framing charge against the petitioners under sections 4 / 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 9B of the Explosives Act, as also under Section 414 of the I.P.C.
3. Petitioners have been made accused in Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.157 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No.2015 of 1998, for the offences under Sections 414 of the I.P.C., 4 / 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 9B of the Explosives Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, on 11.6.1998, the co-accused Md. Naushad Ali was apprehended on a motorcycle and from the motorcycle, explosive materials were recovered by the police. The apprehended accused disclosed that he was going to handover the explosive materials to these petitioners Md. Abid Hussain Ansari and Md. Mujibur Rab @ Munna. On the basis of recovery made from Md. Naushad Ali and on the basis of discloser statement made by the said co-accused, petitioners were made accused in the said Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.157 of 1998. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and sanction for prosecution was accorded as required under the law and ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Session. Petitioners filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 16.5.2002, from which, it is apparent that there was no recovery of any explosive material from the petitioners even after the disclosure statement made by Md. Naushad. The Court below however, rejected the application filed by the petitioners and fixed the case for framing the charge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since no recovery was made from the possession of these petitioners, the offences as alleged, are not made out against these petitioners and it was a fit case for discharge. Learned counsel has submitted that admittedly in this case, no recovery is there from the possession of these petitioners and as such, the offence is not made out either under Section 4 or 5 of the Explosive Substance Act or under Section 9B of the Explosives Act. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is fit case for discharge.
11. In the facts of this case, no offence can be said to be made out even under Section 414 of the I.P.C., against the petitioners, as there is no allegation against the petitioners of concealment of any stolen property.
12. In view of the fact that even if the allegations against the petitioners are accepted in toto, no offence can be said to be made out against them either under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act,1908, or under Section 9B of the Explosives Act,1884, or even under Section 414 of the I.P.C., it is fit case in which the petitioners aught to have been discharged, as the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences which are not made out against them, shall be sheer misuse of the process of the Court. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.