PURSHOTTAM TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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.