Allowed

Chetlal Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order, the High Court of Jharkhand quashed the lower court's order, holding that detonators do not constitute explosive substances as they cannot cause explosion on their own. The court directed the release of the appellants on bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.02.2023 was quashed and set aside, directing the release of appellants upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

Chetlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 282 of 2023

¶2

Chetlal Prasad

¶3

Ranjan Kumar .... .… Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. ….Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P. --------

¶10

Order No.04/dated 12.04.2023

¶11

The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in B.P. No. 60 of 2023, arising out of Barkatha P.S. Case No. 249 of 2021, registered under Sections 341/342/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act whereby and whereunder prayer for bail of the appellants, namely, Chetlal Prasad & Ranjan Kumar has been rejected.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the entire allegation levelled in the F.I.R. does not constitute the offence said to have been committed under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

¶13

Such submission has been made on the ground that the case has been instituted for alleged recovery of 10 pieces of Detonator and a grey colour Honda SP 125 bearing registration No. JH02BE 5275.

¶14

¶15

So far as the recovery of motorcycle is concerned, submission has been made that the said motorcycle is not owned by the appellants and so far as the recovery of Detonators to the extent of 10 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 appellants 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.

¶16

While on the other hand, Mr.Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. has submitted by referring to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. wherein recovery of 10 pieces of Detonator has been shown to have recovered from the possession of the appellants with grey colour Honda SP 125 and hence, there is direct allegation of the appellants since they are named in the F.I.R., 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

¶19

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 appellants, 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 10 pieces of Detonators have been recovered, there is no other allegation levelled. 10. 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 10.02.2023 requires interference.

¶22

Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh in B.P.No.60 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

¶24

In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 13. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released from judicial custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,

¶25

1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No.

¶26

249 of 2021.

¶27

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶29

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶30

P.K.S.

Chetlal Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetlal Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its General Manager Sijua Area No v Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi Vs Neha Choubey

Rubi Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Samim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand