The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1378 of 2023 --------- Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Mehta aged about 36 years son of Shiv Narayan Mehta, resident of Village-Domchanch, P.O. & P.S.-Domchanch, District- Koderma … … Appellant The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Appellant For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant, 12. Accordingly, the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 377 of 2023 in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 14. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, named above, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 10 days and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2020, subject to the condition as follows: (i) that the appellant shall co-operate in the investigation and shall appear before the investigation agency and the learned trial court, as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; 4 (iii) that the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court; (iv) that the appellant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court; (v) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant;
Arguments
: Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Adv. : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, S.P.P. 08/Dated: 17th January, 2024 ----------- 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 377 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2020 registered under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 379, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, Section 13 of Jharkhand (Prevention of Illegal Mines Storage and Transportation) Rule, 2017, Section 37 of the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Section 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 3(a)(b) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that initially a report was submitted by Forest Area Officer, Forest Area, Chitarpur leveling therein the allegation of illegal stone mining and its transportation with the use of Poclain, JCB, Hywa, compressor-cum-Drill Machine, etc. and the same has been treated as prosecution report by competent authority of criminal jurisdiction i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned District and converted into a complaint case being Complaint Case No.660 of 2020. 3. It has been contended that the court taking cognizance is required to go through the prosecution/offence report by the competent authority under 2 Indian Forest Act, 1927 as per which there is no reference of the allegation as said to be committed by the appellant under section 3(a)(b) of the Explosive Substance Act but even then, in addition to the offences said to be committed as per the prosecution report, the cognizance has also been taken under section 3(a)(b) of Explosive Substance Act. Thereafter, the appellant has filed instant pre-arrest bail. 4. It has been contended that the FIR has also been instituted against the appellant but the same having been questioned by the appellant on the same offence, has been quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC. 5. Now the only case remains the present complaint case wherein even though, there is no material of Explosive Substance Act but even the cognizance has been taken. 6. It has been submitted that in all the identically placed persons prior to taking cognizance under section 3(a)(b) of Explosive Substance Act have been directed to release on bail as evident from Annexure-4. All these aspects of the matter has been pointed out to the learned court but the learned court without considering the same, has passed the impugned order. Hence, the instant appeal. 7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of appellant inter alia on the ground that the appellant is having two criminal antecedents and as such, he does not deserve to get the benefit of pre-arrest bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that as per the prosecution report, there is no reference of commission of an offence said to be committed under section 3(a)(b) of Explosive Substance Act. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded in the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 as also the affidavit-in- objection filed based upon the prosecution report. 9. The admitted position herein is that as per prosecution report as appended as Annexure-1 is that the allegations have been alleged to have committed by the appellant under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 379, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal 3 Code, Section 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, Section 13 of Jharkhand (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rule, 2017, Section 37 of the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 44 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 10. It is thus evident that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance has relied upon the prosecution report appended as Annexure-1 which contains no reference of commission of offence under section 3(a)(b) of Explosive Substance Act but the cognizance has also been taken under the aforesaid penal offence of the Explosive Substance Act. 11. We, therefore, are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a
Decision
15. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) pappu/-