N. KANNAPAN versus STATE (UNION TERRITORY) ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 03-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 103 
N. KANNAPAN 
v. 
STATE (UNION TERRITORY} ANDAMAN & NICOBAR 
ISLANDS 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7532 of 2012) 
JANUARY 3, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
BAIL: 
Clandestine transportation, supply and unauthorized use 
of huge quantity of "specific category explosive substances" 
A 
8 
c 
- Petition for bail - Rejected by High Court- Held: There is 
prima facie material to establish involvement of petitioners in 
D 
activities violating the provisions of Explosive Substances Act 
- Consequences of such violation are extremely serious -
Some of the accused are still absconding - Releasing the 
petitioners on bail at this juncture when the prosecution has 
not even commenced to examine the main witnesses could 
E. 
· prove detrimental to eventual outcome of trial - Accordingly, 
the orders of High Court are affirmed - However, it is open to 
the petitioners to move fresh application for bail after the 
material witnesses_ are examined - Explosive Substance Act, 
1908. 
F 
An FIR was registered at Police Station, Port Blair on 
21.06.2011 that a cargo ship had sailed from Chennai to 
Port Blair with huge quantity of unauthorized 
substances. Accordingly, a raiding party comprising 
police personnel reached the destination of the cargo G 
ship. Some independent persons were also associated. 
The raiding party located the container unloaded from the 
cargo ship which was being loaded into a truck. With the 
assistance of the manager of the Shipping Company, 
103 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A another container was also located. Huge quantity of 
gelatine sticks, electronic detonators and "imported 
coated drilled ammonium nitrate" was recovered from the 
two containers. The petitioners were arrested. Their bail 
applications having been rejected by the trial court, they 
B approached the High Court. Though some of the 
petitioners claimed that they were genuine quarry 
operators, possessing valid licences for carrying out 
quarry operations and the confiscated explosive 
materials were to be used in quarry operations, it was the 
c case of the prosecution that firstly, the goods seized 
were "special category explosive substances", use 
whereof without due authorization in quarry operations 
would be infringement of the provisions of the Explosive 
Substances Act, 1908; and secondly, the goods were 
D shipped in a clandestine manner in as much as gelatine 
sticks and electronic detonators were described as 
'grease' and ammonium nitrate was described as 'salt' in 
the declaration manifest relating thereto. The High Court 
declined bail to the petitioners. 
E 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is prima facie material to establish 
the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the 
provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The 
F consequences of such violation are extremely serious. 
The minimum punishment on conviction is 10 years 
rigorous imprisonment. For more serious activities, the 
punishment can extend to imprisonment for life, and 
even to death penalty. Some of the accused are still 
G absconding. Obviously, all the accused are financially 
well placed. Releasing them from jail at this juncture, 
when the prosecution has not even commenced to 
examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to 
the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the 
culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it 
H 
N. KANNAPAN v. STATE (UNION TERRITORY) ANDAMAN 105 
& NICOBAR ISLANDS 
would not be proper to release the petitioners on bail. 
A 
The impugned orders passed by the High Court are 
accordingly affirmed. [Para 15] [113-G-H; 114-A-C] 
1.2. It would be just and appropriate to direct the 
prosecution to first examine the material witnesses. It 
B 
shall be open to the petitioner(s) to move a fresh 
application for bail, after the examination of all the material 
witnesses. [Para 16] [114-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP Criminal 
No. 7532 of 2012. 
C . 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2012 of the High 
Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench, Port Blair in CRM No. 21 of 
2012. 
WITH 
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8286, 8730 & 8876 of 2012. 
D 
H.P. Raval, ASG, Gopal Subramanium, Uday U. Lalit, 
Amrendr& :;; .aran, Ram Jethmalani, R. Chandrachud, D. llango, 
E 
N. Shoba, S·i Ram J. Thalapathy, V. Adhimoolam, Sanjay 
Sarin, Nipu Patiri, Hemraj Bahadur, Gangandeep Kaur, Rajiv 
Talwar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Nares
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.