Allowed

Chetlal Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/64/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal for anticipatory bail against an order rejecting the prayer for release. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the Court held that detonators are not explosive substances. The Court quashed the lower order and directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks for release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; appellant directed to surrender within four weeks and released on bail upon submission of bond and sureties.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 64 of 2023

¶2

Chetlal Prasad.

¶3

Ranjan Kumar.

¶4

Sajan Kumar .... .… Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant :Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate. For the State :Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant :Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

¶11

¶12

Order No.04/dated 20.04.2023

¶13

It require to refer herein that the instant appeal although has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the three named accused persons, namely, Chetlal Prasad, Ranjan Kumar and Sajan Kumar. But in course of pendency of instant appeal, since, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar have been apprehended, therefore, the instant application is not being pressed on behalf of Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar.

¶14

Mr. Shikarwar, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the instant appeal may be confined only with the appellant No.3, namely, Sajan Kumar.

¶15

The instant appeal preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in A.B.P.No. 1595 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for release of the appellant

¶16

¶17

apprehending his arrest in connection with 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 has been rejected.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that omnibus and vague allegation has been levelled against the appellant. It has been submitted by referring to the seizure memo that 10 pieces of detonator has been recovered. Submission has been made that detonator cannot be said to be explosive substance in independent capacity and taking the same into consideration, this Court has granted the other coaccused persons, namely, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar the privilege of regular bail.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside so as to the appellant may be granted privilege of bail in case of his arrest.

¶20

While on the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as also Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the informant have submitted that there is criminal antecedent against the appellant of the identical nature of the cases. Further submission has been made that the order 12.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 282 of 2023 upon which the reliance is being placed for consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant cannot be made applicable herein, since, the appellant herein seeking benefit of

¶21

¶22

bail in apprehension of his arrest, when, the co-accused persons, namely Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar have been directed to be released on regular bail.

¶23

This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions found that this Court while considering the cases of the accused namely, Chetlal Prasad and Ranjan Kumar has directed to release them on regular bail by taking into consideration the fact that the recovery of detonator cannot in independent capacity be said to be explosive substance as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lopchand Naruji Jat and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, [2004 (3) East Cr. C. 226 (S.C.)] and by this Court in case of Kamal Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 2 JBCJ 234. However, the objection has been raised that the aforesaid order cannot be given parity with the facts of the case, since, the appellant herein is seeking benefit of bail in apprehension of arrest where the aforesaid judgment has been considered pertains to the grant of regular bail. This Court after considering the said objection is of the view that when illegal issue is being raised regarding the very ingredient of offence as to whether a detonator can be said to be an explosive substance within the meaning of the explosive substance and when the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with by holding therein that detonator cannot be, in independent capacity, an explosive substance, therefore, the said finding is also applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case.

¶24

¶25

Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the detonator to be treated not to be explosive substance, therefore, this Court is of the view that so far as the ingredient of the Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act is concerned, the same is also made applicable herein also.

¶26

The other objection has been raised regarding the criminal antecedent of the appellant but the said criminal antecedent, as has been narrated by the informant, has been instituted against informant himself by the appellant of levelling identical nature of allegation as the allegation has been levelled in the instant case.

¶27

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires interference.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in A.B.P.No. 1595 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶29

In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Sajan Kumar is directed to surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and on his such surrender the learned court-below shall release him on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,

¶31

¶32