JAKARIA KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the p1.arties. Apprehending his arrest the accused -petitioner has moved this application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.106/2012 registered at Police Station Chaupanki (District Alwar) for the offences under Section 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1908'). The allegation against the petitioner is that he sold or otherwise supplied explosive Ammonium Nitrate to co -accused -Shri Sahun without any licence or authority. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tijara (District Alwar) vide order dated 25.07.2013.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that FIR No.106/2012 came to be registered on 30.12.2012 at Police Station Chaupanki (District Alwar) for the aforesaid offences with the averments that huge quantity of explosives including Ammonium Nitrate were recovered from two shops situated at village Udhanwas within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Police Station and the same were seized as no valid licence or permit was found to possess or store the same. During the course of investigation it was found that the shops from where the recovery was made were in the possession of co -accused -Shri Sahun and two other persons and the Ammonium Nitrate so recovered was sold by M/s Deepak Fertilizers on 17.10.2012, 20.10.2012 and 18.11.2012 to M/s Mewat Enterprises of which the present petitioner claims to be sole proprietor.

(3.) DURING the course of interrogation co -accused -Shri Sahun claimed that he obtained/purchased the recovered Ammonium Nitrate from petitioner through his driver -Shri Nazeer and he also identified the house of petitioner where transaction regarding supply of the recovered Ammonium Nitrate allegedly took place between the petitioner and the co -accused -Shri Sahun. Although, in the FIR name of petitioner did not appear as an accused, but on the basis of evidence collected during investigation his name was also added as an accused. It is to be noted that after investigation charge -sheet for the aforesaid offences has already been filed against as many as four accused including Shri Sahun whereas investigation was kept pending against as many as six persons including the petitioner under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, apprehending his arrest the present application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed. In support of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds: -