Sonu Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.

(2) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected in connection with Crime No.20 of 2022, registered at Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 9-B of the Explosive Act, 1884 and also under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

(3) As per the case of prosecution, on 21.01.2022 an Explosive Van (Bolero Pickup) bearing registration No.CG-04-NC-9877 was interrupted by the police, in which explosive substance: 44 boxes of Shakti Prime, M/s Special Blasta Ltd, Shakti Prime CDA-83 20/01/2022 P2-20576INSPP200122A0328CDAP2036876 (each box contained 9 'Gulla' weighing 25 kg); one bundle Shakti Card DF Wire (orange colour), length-300 meters; one bundle Shakti Card DF Wire (red colour), length- 75 meters and 05 meter Safety Fuse Wire were recovered and, on being inquired from the driver- Saavan Bhaskar, he informed that the explosive substance belongs to Sonu Sharma (present appellant), on the basis of which the offences as aforementioned were got registered against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below for grant of anticipatory bail, but the same was rejected by impugned order dated 09.03.2022, giving rise to filing of the present appeal.

(4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Only on the basis of statement of the driver, the present appellant has been made an accused in the instant case, whereas he is an employee of Jai Durga Enterprises and working as accountant there, which is a licensed firm involved in the business of explosives, wherein the aforesaid vehicle and the driver are also working and, as such, he has been falsely implicated. Moreover, the necessary ingredients for committing offences under Section 9-B of the Explosive Act, 1884 and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are also not attracted against the appellant in the instant case, as neither the possession of the vehicle, in which explosive substances were recovered, nor control over it has been proved/established on the appellant. Thus, the present appellant be enlarged on anticipatory bail by allowing the present appeal.

(5) On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 and submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was absolutely justified in rejecting the bail application of the appellant filed under Section 438 of CrPC. It is further submitted that the explosive substance in question was in direct control of the accused-appellant and it was not being transported for lawful object, as such, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and present appeal deserved to be dismissed.

(6) We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order and also the material contained in the case diary including the charge-sheet.

(7) It appears that the explosive substance has been found in the vehicle in question, which has been seized from the possession of the driver of the said vehicle, namely, Saavan Bhaskar and, except this, nothing else or more has been shown that the said explosive substance belongs to the present appellant or the vehicle in question was in direct control of the appellant or the explosive substance was being transported for unlawful object and, in that view of the matter and further considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the material available on record, we consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The learned Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail of the present appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure-A/1), passed by the Court below is set aside and appellant's application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.

(8) Consequently, this appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant- Sonu Sharma in connection with the aforesaid crime/offences, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating/Arresting Officer. The appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:-

I. that he shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Arresting/Investigating Officer as and when required;

II. that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to the person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

III. that he shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

IV. that he shall also appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.