IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, J.
Jagdish – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1129/2015
And
Mangi Lal – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.704/2015
And
Sher Singh – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.883/2015
And
Kalu Ram – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.995/2015
And
Mohammad Qureshi & anr. – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1027/2015
And
Ramesh – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.187/2015
And
Madan Mohan & another – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.15056/2014
And
Kishan Lal @ Kalu Ram – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
And
Sameem – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1140/2015
And
Prem Singh – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1885/2015
And
Kalicharan – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.2052/2015
And
Mahavir & another – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1812/2015
And
Tola Ram & another – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.2586/2015
Decided On : 18.03.2015
Bail application dismissed.
foLQksVd vf/kfu;e] 1884] /kkjk 4¼?k½] 9&[k( foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908] /kkjk 2¼d½] 4] 5] 6] 7( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 286] 120&[k( na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 439 & ^^foLQksVd** vkSj ^^foLQksVd inkFkZ** dk vFkZ vkSj O;kfIr & D;k veksfu;e ukbVªsV vkSj vU; foLQksVd] tks cgqr cM+h ek=k esa cjken gq, gS] os 1884 ds vf/kfu;e ds vFkZ ds rgr ^foLQksVd* ;k 1908 ds vf/kfu;e ds vFkZ ds rgr ^foLQksVd inkFkZ* ds vUrxZr vkrs gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & veksfu;e ukbVªsV lfgr dksbZ Hkh foLQksVd 1884 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 42 ds [k.M ¼?k½ ds rgr ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr gS dks ,d foLQksVd inkFkZ ds :i esa ekuuk gksrk gS tSlk fd foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908 dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds rgr ifjHkkf"kr gS] ;fn mls 1908 ds vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr <ax ls o ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fdlh O;fä }kjk laO;ogkfjr fd;k x;k gks & vfHk;qä }kjk dkfjr vijk/k xSj tekurh vijk/k gS vr% vfHk;qä vf/kdkj ds :i esa tekur ij fjgk fd;s tkus ds gdnkj ugha gS blfy, izdj.k ds xq.kkxq.kk ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA ¼in la- 26½
tekur ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
Each of the accused-petitioner has moved a separate application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Although, the aforesaid bail applications arise out of different FIRs registered from time to time at different Police Stations situated in the State of Rajasthan, but as a common question of law has been raised in these applications, they are being decided and disposed of by this common order. The common question of law which has been raised in these applications is whether the substances/articles allegedly recovered from the possession of each of the accused-petitioners is an “explosive” within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1884”) or an “explosive substance” within the meaning of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1908’) and another question of law is whether the offence committed by each of the accused-petitioners is covered under the Act of 1884 or the Act of 1908. It is to be noted that if it is found that the offence so committed is punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1884, the same is to be treated as a bailable offence and the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as a right, but if it is found that the offence is punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1908, then the accused-petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail without considering the merit of the case.
S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1129/2015 filed by the accused-petitioner-Shri Jagdish and S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.704/2015 filed by the accused-petitioner-Shri Mangi Lal have arisen out of FIR No.5/2015 registered at Police Station Sadar, Dausa for the offences under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act of 1908. The prosecution case is that Ammonium Nitrate weighing 93 Kg. and blue coloured safety fuse wire was found in the possession of the accused-petitioner Shri Mangilal without any valid licence or permit when he was carrying them from one place to another by Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-29-2M-0354 on 03.01.2015, whereas Ammonium Nitrate weighing 141 Kg. was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner-Shri Jagdish on 07.01.2015 without any valid licence or permit. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner-Shri Mangilal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa vide order dated 09.01.2015, whereas that filed by the accused-petitioner-Shri Jagdish was dismissed by the same Court vide order dated 13.01.2015.
S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.883/2015 filed by the accused-petitioner-Shri Sher Singh has arisen from FIR No.19/2015 registered at Police Station Bayana (District Bharatpur) for the offences under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act of 1908. As per prosecution case on 7.1.2015 green coloured fuse wire measuring 5 ft., four aluminum topies, and three gullas (detonators) alongwith a tractor fitted with compressor and two rods and two sabbals were found in the possession of the accused-petitioner-Shri Sher Singh without any valid licence or permit and he was having the aforesaid substances/articles in his possession for making hole in a hill for mining purposes. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana vide order dated 16.01.2015.
S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.995/2015 by accused-petitioner-Shri Kalu Ram has been filed by him in respect of FIR No.468/2014 registered at Police Station Chaksu (District Jaipur) for the offence under Section 5 of the Act of 1908. As per prosecution case 70 gelatin bars, one super-explosure machine and electric wire alongwith a tractor fitted with compressor were found in the possession of the accused-petitioner without any valid licence or permit. It is further case of the prosecution that the super explosure machine found in the possession of the accused-petitioner was for being used for explosion. Th
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.