Gulshan Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Laxman Singh @ Lakshman v. …. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1220 of 2024 ------ Gulshan Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Laxman Singh @ Lakshman Singh, resident of village-Sua, P.O. Sua & P.S. Sadar, District Palamu, Jharkhand, PIN-822102. State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent Versus …. …. Appellant CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate Ms. Divya, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. 03/Dated: 12.11.2024 ------ 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.454 of 2024 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-III, Palamau, in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. As per the first information report, the appellant is the proprietor of the M/s AGR Minerals. As per the allegation, the Police raided the premises of the said mines and found the explosive substance. The Police when demanded the documents, the same could not have been produced, therefore, the case has been instituted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where there is absolutely false implication of the appellant which is evident from the fact that the appellant is running a mining project in the name and style of M/s AGR Minerals on the basis of the lease license, as would be evident from Annexure-4. 1 4. It has been contended by referring to the contract entered with one Rupak Singh, as has been appended as Annexure-7, which is for the purpose of purchase of explosive for blast in the mining operation. The said agreement is dated 14.09.2023, while, the said explosive substance has been said to be recovered as per the seizure memo on 19.03.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by relying upon Annexure-3, by which, the co-accused Dhirendra Kumar Singh has been allowed to get the privilege of regular bail on the premise that whatever has been found to be recovered will not come under the fold of Explosive substances Act, as has been dealt with at paragraph-13 of the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.952 of 2024. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent and he is running the said mining operation by virtue of the relevant documents, as also, in pursuant to the notice issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C, he has also cooperated the Investigating Agency by producing the document, when it was required by the Investigating Agency. 7. Learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned court has not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and without appreciating the same, the prayer for bail in apprehension of arrest, has been rejected, therefore, the present appeal. 8. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. It has been submitted that the explosive substance has been recovered from the premises of the Unit of the appellant, namely, M/s AGR Minerals and as such, it is not a case where the privilege of anticipatory bail is to be given, hence, impugned order requires no interference. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary, which has been called for by this Court vide 2 order dated 30.09.2024. 11. The FIR has been instituted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 12. The appellant has tried to demonstrate of his false implication on the basis of the genuine mining operators in pursuant to the lease license issued by the competent authority and in order to support his argument he has also appended the copy of the lease license as Annexure-4. 13. We have perused the same and found therefrom that the said mining lease is dated 21.03.2023 entered in between the State of Jharkhand and M/S AGR Minerals to which the appellant is the proprietor. 14. The appellant has also tried to impress upon this Court by referring to Contract entered with one Rupak Singh as the agreement is appended as Annexure-7, which we have also perused and found that the same is dated 14.09.2023 and the Contract has been entered for supply of explosive in the premise of the Unit of the appellant for the purpose of mining operation. 15. The aforesaid fact about the issuance of the lease and entering into the agreement with one Rupak Singh has also been taken note by the Investigating Agency, as would be evident from paragraph-62 & 69 of the case diary as also the paragraph-3 of the supplementary case diary. 16. It also appears from paragraph-62 of the case diary that the said documents on being called upon in pursuant to the notice issued to the appellant under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has produced the said documents in order to substantiate his innocence. 17. Thus, it is also evident that the appellant is cooperating in the Investigation. One of the co-accused person who happens to be the employee of the appellant, namely, Dhirendra Kumar Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.952 of 2024. The reason for granting such relief was that the learned Court has not considered the agreement as also the relevant documents only on the ground that the Investigation is 3 pending. 18. But, we, on consideration of the aforesaid documentary evidence as also the appellant since is co-operating the Investigating Agency and further, the appellant is having no criminal antecedent, therefore, are of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.454 of 2024 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-III, Palamau, in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 20. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 21. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, above named, 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, Palamau, Daltonganj, in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate the Investigating Agency as and when the Investigating Officer will call upon the appellant. Further, after submission of charge-sheet, the appellant shall cooperate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered.
Decision
22. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/- 4