Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1672 (MP)

Purshottam Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2014-12-16

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Shri D.D. Azad Station House Officer of Police Station Nougaon, District Chhatarpur is also present in Court. 2. This is first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 312/2014 registered at Police Station Nougaon, District Chhatarpur for the offence under Section 5 Explosive Substances Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as alleged the explosive which was seized has been received by a consignment of the firm M/s. Ramraja Enterprises, Tikamgarh to the present applicant M/s. Purshottam Tiwari Sangrawan Kala Nougaon, District Chhatarpur. It is said that the explosive of Batch No. PP7C04 has been seized from some of the other person and not from the Van or with his staff. The applicant is a licensee in the name of M/s. Purshottam Tiwari Sangrawan Kala Nougaon, District Chhatarpur. In this respect, statement of one Arvind Shrivastava has been recorded, who is an agent of M/s. Ramraja Enterprises, Tikamgarh, and deposed that the explosive was delivered to the firm of the present applicant. As per the document available on record, it is apparent that total consignment was of 15000 kilogram of the said firm and out of which 2500 kilogram has been purchased & delivered to the firm of the present applicant. However, as per the statement of Arvind Shrivastava, it is not clear that the complete explosive purchased by M/s. Ramraja Enterprises has been delivered to the firm of the present applicant. In additional thereto, it cannot be correlated that the explosive of Batch No. PP7C04 seized was wholly delivered to the firm of the present applicant. In addition producing various documents, it is said that some explosive was given to the blaster as permissible under the rules as per the passes issued in this regard. The explosive which is in question has been delivered to the blaster after online intimation to the police authorities, which was seized from a different vehicle. After delivery to the blasters including the explosive of the alleged Batch No. PP7C04, it would not be the responsibility of the licensee like present applicant. In such circumstances, without having any connection implication of the present applicant on having licensee, is not permissible. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. After delivery to the blasters including the explosive of the alleged Batch No. PP7C04, it would not be the responsibility of the licensee like present applicant. In such circumstances, without having any connection implication of the present applicant on having licensee, is not permissible. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the non applicant has made an endeavour to satisfy this Court that the explosive of Batch No. PP7C04 and others has been delivered to the firm of the present applicant, which was seized by raiding party in a vehicle not belonged to him. In such circumstances, direct involvement of the applicant in the present case is there and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In addition thereto, it is urged that action under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been taken and, therefore also, the application seeking anticipatory bail ought to be rejected. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the fact that out of the total 15000 kilogram of explosive of M/s. Ramraja Enterprises, Tikamgarh from which the present applicant has purchased only 2500 kilogram. As per the investigation it is not clear that the complete explosive of the batches in question was delivered to the firm of the present applicant only and not to others. No documentary evidence to this effect is available in the case diary though it may be gathered from the record of stock. In additional thereto, it is apparent that the applicant is a licensee and after receiving the said explosive, it was given to the blaster as per the passes issued periodical by the department after online intimation to the police department. The document timely online intimation is filed on record, which is not disputed by the non applicant. However, after giving the explosive to the blaster, recovery was made from others. Thus link to applicant and to find him guilty is missing. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to grant anticipatory bail to applicant Purshottam Tiwari. He is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to grant anticipatory bail to applicant Purshottam Tiwari. He is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 100000/- with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Conditions of Section438(2) shall apply on the applicant during currency of bail. 8. Certified copy as per rules.