The possession of a valid license to possess explosives for blasting, without specified limits on the quantity, can entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail if the prosecution fails to clarify the quantity of excess material possessed.

JUDGMENT

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest.

2. The petitioners are a-2 and a-3 in Crime No.143 of 2022 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Krishna District.

3. a case under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances amendment act, 1905, was registered against them along with a-1 in the above crime.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have stored excessive blasting material which is an explosive material at the quarry without taking any precautions and care and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 1st petitioner, who is a-2, is the Manager of a-3 and a-3 is in possession of licence to possess explosives for the purpose of blasting. Therefore, he has stored the said explosive material for blasting at the quarry. So, no offence is constituted against the petitioners as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He has conceded that a-3 is in possession of licence to possess explosives for the purpose of blasting. However, he would submit that he is in possession of excess explosives beyond the limits of his licence and he did not take any proper care in storing the said explosives and as such the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

8. The petitioners have produced the copy of the licence which is in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is a-3. The genuineness of the said copy of the licence, which is now produced before this Court, is not disputed by the prosecution. In fact, learned additional Public Prosecutor after seeking instructions in this regard, fairly conceded that it is a genuine licence. Therefore, it is now established that a-3 is in possession of a valid licence permitting him to possess explosives for the purpose of blasting the quarry. Now, the allegation against the petitioners is that he is in possession of excessive blasting material. But as can be seen from the licence, no limit is placed to possess the blasting material or the explosives. Further, it is not made clear how much quantity of the excess material is possessed by the petitioners beyond the limits of the licence. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail.

9. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in the above crime, they shall be forthwith released on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Krishna District.