IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20416 of 2011 Date of decision : December 12, 2011 Anand Mitra Acharya ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. CS Bakshi, Addl. AG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Anand Mitra Acharya has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 202 dated 23.9.2010 under section 427 IPC and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sections 153, 153A, 285, 436 IPC and sections 3,4,5 of Explosive Act and section 25 of the Arms Act added later on, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, an explosion took place in Gurukul at Bhadas on 22.9.2010 at about 9.30 PM. Resultantly the room which was in occupation of the petitioner was damaged. Wall and roof of the room were destroyed and there was also extensive damage to the floor and verandah. Some nearby places i.e. kitchen, office, wheat store were also damaged. Criminal Misc. No. M-20416 of 2011 -2- The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2010. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, a licenced gun of one Dayanand was recovered along with two empty cartridges and 12 crackers. The prosecution version is that the petitioner had stocked explosive substances as a defence measure for Hindu community against the attack by Muslim community residing in the area or in the event of communal riots which could be launched by Muslims against Hindus. Recovery of gun was effected two and half months after the occurrence. The gun is licenced gun of one Dayanand. The petitioner is in custody for more than one year. Trial has not progressed much. Even report of Forensic Science Laboratory has not yet been received as stated by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rajinder Singh. Even according to the prosecution version, the petitioner had stocked the explosives only as defence measure in the event of communal riots and had not used the same at any stage. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be released on bail and should not be detained indefinitely during trial of the case which is likely to take time. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Mewat at Nuh. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'