1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

------

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.202 of 2023

------

Tarkeshwar Jaiswal, Aged about 54 years, son of Late Shyamlal Jaiswal

…. …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Appellant

: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vaishistha, Spl. P.P.

------

06/Dated:19^th May,2023

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed

against the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in A.B.P.

No.607 of 2022 in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case

No.29 of 2022 for the offence registered under Sections

Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and

whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

appellant, has been rejected.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that nothing incriminating has come against the

appellant, since, his complicity has only been shown on

the basis of confession made by one Dev Singh.

The submission has also been made that the

material which was recovered said to have explosive

substance, i.e., MEC Power-1 Class-2, explosive, 83mm

2

x 2.78 Kgs of 24 pieces and MEC Force (H), tied by

aluminium wire contained in the brown colour plastic bag

and 47 pieces of explosive; 83mm x 2.78 Kg, cannot be

said to be explosive substance, rather, it can only be

considered to be explosive and hence, there is no

ingredients of Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act,

on the basis of which, FIR has been instituted.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

further submitted that merely because the explosive has

been seized even accepting the allegation to be proved,

then also, there is no applicability of ingredients of

Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, reason

being that, the explosive itself, cannot be said to be

substance.

3.

The coordinate Bench of this Court has heard this

matter on 23.02.2023 and has called for the case diary.

4.

Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P. appearing for

the State of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to

paragraph-10

of

the

case

diary

which

contains

confessional statement of Dev Singh, who happens to be

the brother of one other co-accused person, namely, Raj

Kumar Singh, has disclosed as under paragraph-10

thereof that the appellant of this case along with his elder

brother, Raj Kumar Singh are involved in the business of

stone. He has further disclosed the specific involvement

of his brother in using explosive substance for the

3

purpose of making of stone.

5.

Learned Spl. P.P., in view of the aforesaid, has

submitted that since the investigation is still going on and

the contention which has been raised that brother of Dev

Singh along with the appellant of this case, namely,

Tarkeshwar Jaiswal, were involved in illegal mining and

for that purpose, the explosive substance is being

procured for the purpose of making of stone and as such,

it is not a fit case where the prayer for privilege of

anticipatory bail, may be allowed.

In counter to the submission made on behalf of the

appellant that the material which has been recovered as

per the seizure memo cannot be construed to be

explosive substance, in this regard, submission has been

made by referring to the incriminating material not

construed to be wholly explosive, rather, it is explosive

substance and for the purpose of strengthening his

argument, he has placed the judgment rendered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Usman

Mo