Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 538 (ORI)

RAM CHANDRA DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2016-07-20

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No. 183 of 2016 arising out of Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 25(1-AA) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which was rejected on 18.4.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the prosecution case that on 31.1.2016, on getting reliable information that Sri Bharat Bhusan Swain of Gandarpur, a close associate of Sushanta Dhalsamanta and Sushil Dhalsamanta was keeping their arms and ammunitions in the house of one Kuni Das of Gandarpur, the Inspector-in-Charge of Chauliaganj Police Station along with other police officials searched the house of Kuni @ Krushna Chandra Das and found him absent and at that point of time, they found the petitioner, who is the younger brother of said Kuni @ Krushna Chandra Das was in possession of the arms and ammunitions which were accordingly seized and the petitioner was taken into custody. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents and he came into the possession of those arms and ammunitions as his brother asked him to shift the same to a safer place and none of the arms and ammunitions seized from the possession of the petitioner comes within the definition of prohibited arms and prohibited ammunitions and there is absolutely no material that the petitioner used any such arms and ammunitions and, therefore, the submission of charge sheet under section 25(1-AA) and section 27 of the Arms Act was not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even accepting the prosecution case for the sake of argument, at best it attracts the ingredients of the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act which is triable by Magistrate and, therefore, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application of the petitioner may favourably be considered. 5 Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, produced the case diary and opposed the prayer for bail and contended that prima facie materials relating to involvement of the petitioner in another case, i.e., Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 27/2016 is also there and examination report of the Director and Chemical Examiner to Government of Odisha, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar has been obtained and the petitioner had no license to possess such arms and ammunitions and after obtaining sanction order from the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack, charge sheet has been placed. It is further contended that number of cases have been instituted against Sushant Dhalsamanta and Sushil Dhalasamanta and number of anti socials have also been taken into custody in those cases which are the cases of extortion, dada bati, tender fixing and murder etc. and in some cases, investigation is under progress. He further submits that the co-accused Kuni @ Krushna Chandra Das is yet to be apprehended against whom charge sheet has been filed showing as absconder and, therefore, if at this stage, bail is granted, there will be every chance of tampering with the evidence not only in this case, but in other cases also which are related to this case. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it prima facie appears that from the possession of the petitioner, a bag containing 4 numbers of 9 mm pistols, 9 nos. of empty magazine, 160 rounds of ammunitions i.e. 76 rounds of 9 mm ball ammunitions, 17 rounds of 7.6 mm ball ammunitions, 53 rounds of .38 inch ball ammunitions, one round of .32 inch ammunitions, 5 rounds of .303 ball ammunitions, 5 rounds of .410 muskets, 3 empty .303 empty cartridges, 303 charge clip-1 were seized. It further appears that the petitioner had no legal/valid documents in support of the possession of such huge quantity of arms and ammunitions. The Director and Chemical Examiner to the Government of Odisha, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar has opined as follows: 1. Firearm exhibit A,B, C and D are 9 mm, country made, semiautomatic pistol which are in working order and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 2. Exhibit E-1 to E-5 are five number of empty 9 mm magazines come under the purview of Indian Arms Act. 3. Firearm exhibit A,B, C and D are 9 mm, country made, semiautomatic pistol which are in working order and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 2. Exhibit E-1 to E-5 are five number of empty 9 mm magazines come under the purview of Indian Arms Act. 3. Cartride exhibits F-1 to F-76 are 76 nos. of 9 mm OK, KF make live cartridges and come under the purview of India Arms Act; 4. Cartridge exhibits H-1 to H-53 are 53 nos. of 0.383" OK KF make live cartridges and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 5. Cartridge exhibits G-1 to G-17 are 17 nos. of 7.65 mm KF make live cartridges and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 6. Cartridge exhibits I is a 0.32" KF make live cartridges and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 7. Cartridge exhibits J-1 to J-4 are 4 nos. of 0.303" OK make, J-5 is a 7.62 mm rimless (SLR) live cartridges come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; 8. Cartridge exhibits K-1 to K-5 are 5 nos. of 8mm KF make live cartridges and come under the purview of Indian Arms Act; and 9. Cartridge exhibits L-1 to L-2 are 2 nos. of 0.303" fired cartridge cases. L-3 is a 8 mm fired cartridge case and L-4 is a clip for 0.303" cartridges. L-1 to L-4 come under the purview of Indian Arms Act." 7. It further appears that the order has been obtained from the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack to prosecute the accused persons including the present petitioner under the Arms Act and the brother of the petitioner, namely, Kuni @ Krushna Chandra Das who stated to have asked the petitioner to shift the arms and ammunitions to a safer place is yet to be arrested. 8. Learned counsel for the State also drew the attention of the Court to the records of Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 27/2016 in which charge sheet was submitted under sections 387/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-B)(a)/25(1-AA)/27 of the Arms Act against number of accused persons but the investigation was kept open and materials are available against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the said case for which a prayer has been made by the investigating officer to the learned S.D.J.M(S), Cuttack to take the petitioner on remand in that case. 9. 9. In view of the materials available on record, whether the ingredients of the offences under which charge sheet has been placed would be attracted or not or it will attract the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act can certainly be taken care of, if the order of cognizance is challenged before the appropriate Court or at the stage of framing charge or at the stage of final argument during trial. At this stage, when prima facie materials are available on record relating to the possession huge quantity of arms and ammunitions by the petitioner without any valid license, his involvement in other case as well as taking into account the chance of tampering with the evidence not only in this case but also in other cases where the criminal activities of the gangsters of Dhalsamanta brothers and their associates are under investigation and when the brother of the petitioner is yet to be arrested, taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner being devoid of merits stands rejected.