Mohammad Shaji Khan S/O. Khadir Ahmed Khan vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It found that the applicant possessed requisite licenses for the purchase, storage, and transport of explosives, with specified quantities and validity until March 31, 2024. The seized quantity was noted to be less than the permissible limit under the license. The Court acknowledged that the primary violation, if any, was the storage of explosives at a location other than the registered godown, which constituted a breach of license conditions. The Court found that the inferences drawn by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application were not supported by material on record. Therefore, the applicant was not required to undergo custodial interrogation. The Court granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties, and directed the applicant to report to the Investigating Officer on specified dates and thereafter as required until the filing of the charge sheet.

Facts

The applicant, Mohammad Shaji Khan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0304 of 2021, registered under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. The FIR alleged that the applicant had unauthorizedly stored explosives in a godown on his agricultural field. During a raid, gelatin sticks and blasting wire were seized. The applicant claimed to be conducting a licensed business of explosive substances, possessing valid licenses for possession, use, and transport of specified quantities of explosives until March 31, 2024. He argued that the seized quantity was within his licensed limits and that the purchase was from a licensed firm. The prosecution contended that the explosives were stored at an unregistered location, not the designated godown, which had been non-operational for two years, necessitating custodial interrogation. A previous case for violation of the Explosive Substances Act was also cited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's actions constitute an offence under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884, given his possession of valid licenses for the purchase, storage, and transport of explosives, and whether the seized quantity was within the permitted limits. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act were not made out. He contended that he possessed a valid license to possess, use, and transport explosives, including specific quantities of nitrate mixture, safety fuse, and detonators, valid until March 31, 2024. The seized quantity was within these limits. He also presented GST invoices showing purchases from a licensed firm and a license for a shot firer, Kishor Shelke, who used explosives from the applicant. The applicant asserted that at most, provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884, might be invoked, not the Explosive Substances Act. He relied on the definition of explosive substances under Section 2 of the Act. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant stored explosives in a godown on his agricultural field, which was not the registered place of storage. The designated storage facility had been non-operational for two years. The State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the true reasons for storing explosives at the agricultural field godown and to uncover any further illicit activities. The State also highlighted a previous case registered against the applicant for violating the Explosive Substances Act.