An NIA court sentenced a Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bablu Mondal in the 2019 Birbhum bomb blast case. The court also imposed a Rs 10,000 fine.
In an order dated 13th February 2025, Judge Shubhendu Saha found TMC leader Bablu Mondal guilty under section 286 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act.
The blast had occurred in the house of Bablu Mondal in Gangpur village under the Lokepur Police Station precinct. The Lokepur police arrested his two sons, Niranjan Mondal and Mrityunjay Mondal, in 2019. The duo had absconded after being released on bail while Bablu Mondal had surrendered later.
Although no one was injured in the blast, the residential premises of Bablu Mondal and his sons were found during the investigation to be used for the storage of illegal explosives and the making of crude bombs. It was found that Mondal had been storing explosives in his house since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
In the course of police custodial interrogation, it was disclosed by Bablu Mondal’s sons that their father Bablu Mondal stored some explosives or bombs in a tin box which had exploded. Accused Bablu Monal had also stored two pistols. wo country made improvised one-shooter firearms including a pipe gun and a pistol.
The NIA, which took over and re-registered the case in September 2020, charged all three accused on 5th September 2022. Investigations to track the absconding accused are ongoing.
Notably, the West Bengal police’s botched-up investigation into the matter raised serious questions as all three accused managed to get bail. It was only after the Calcutta High Court directed the National Investigation Agency to take over the case that the accused could finally be brought to justice.
The saga of botched up investigation against TMC leader in a TMC-ruled state
Arup Kumar Dutta (PW1) who was the officer-in-charge of Lokepur police station in 2019 stated that on 20th September 2019, he received information from one Prasanta Das that there was an incident of an explosion at the residence of Bablu Mondal. The officer along with his team arrived at the accused Bablu Mondal’s tin shed residence which was completely blown away. PW1 added that he found the smell of explosives at that place and fragments of tin. One Helaram Das of that village produced a written complaint to him against Bablu Mondal and his two sons on the spot.
The FIR was sent to the police station through Constable Kenaram Murmu. The FIR having been produced at the police station before the duty officer Rabindra Nath Dey, the investigation started. The case was endorsed for investigation by S.I. of Police, Abdul Hai. He took up the process of investigation. In relation to this case, the I.O. of NIA interrogated him and he stated everything to him.
On reaching at the spot Inspector Arup Kumar Dutta cordoned off the premises of Bablu Mondal to prevent any interference with the evidence on the spot. The witness identified the accused Bablu Mondal on dock.
In his cross-examination, he could not recall whether he diarized the fact of receiving information regarding the explosion from the village police. He made General Diary Enquiry (GDE) before leaving the police station but do not remember the reference. The officer also did not record the statement of any of the witness nor did seize anything.
In his testimony, Helaram Das (PW2) said that he is a Gangpur village resident and knows Bablu Mondal as a co-villager. He stated that about three years ago, after two to three days of Biswakarma Puja, there was a huge explosion in the home of Bablu Mondal. It was about 5.30 or 6.00 pm. His home situated next to his residence. On hearing the sound of an explosion, some of the co-villagers came there. Police from Lokpur P.S. also came on the spot. Before the police, he submitted a written complaint. The Written FIR was shown to the witness he identified the same to be the written complaint described by Mrityunjoy Das of the village under his instruction.
During cross-examination, Helaram Das said that He did not ask any of the inmates of the house of Bablu Mondal but he heard his sons saying “gas cylinder exploded”.
In his statement, SI Abdul Hai (PW3) who was the first Investigation Officer (IO) of the state police-initiated case, said that visited the P.O. and prepared a rough sketch map with index. Abdul Hai said that he interrogated and recorded the statement of the complainant (Helaram Das) while Lokepur police station officer-in-charge Arup Kumar Dutta was present there. He cordoned off the premises of P.O. From there he collected some pieces of paper carton with the smell of gunpowder, some pieces of tin and fragments of broken mud wall. All of these articles had the smell of gunpowder or explosives. He made the seizure of articles by preparing a seizure list.
Abdul Hai added that sent the seized article for forensic examination through the Ld. J.M., Dubrajpur. He also interrogated the available witness and recorded their statement. In addition, he raided the house of accused Bablu Mondal to arrest him and his two co-accused sons Niranjan and Mrityunjoy. The accused were taken to court and the police got their custody. The accused were taken to their house to recover illegal firearms. One shutter pipe gun having wooden butts, Metal Barrel, Pipe Gun, Tigger and Firepin along with other countrymade weapons were seized.
The PW3 said that the seized arms were sent for examination by the Arms Expert through the Court. All the other seized articles were sent for examination to CFSL.
However, during cross-examination, SI Abdul Hai said that he did not take the help of any ballistic expert. The officer also failed to recall whether he got the photography or videography done of the explosion site.
Moreover, the Investigation Officer also failed to take assistance of any other expert agency except State and Central Forensic Laboratory. The officer did not prepare any inventory list of the items in the place of occurrence. While Abdul Hai (PW3) said that he interrogated the witnesses, none of those interrogated by him gave any description as to the intensity of the explosion and if anyone was injured due to the explosion. The police officer also failed to seize any burnt articles from the place of occurrence.
As the investigating officer for the initial three months, Abdul Hai did not care to probe where from the illegal explosives and firearms were procured by the accused TMC leader. He did not interrogate any office bearers of local village panchayat.
The cross-examination of PW6 Dr Debashish Saha, Assistant Director (Chemistry Section), SFSL, Kolkata further reveals the lapses in investigation conducted by the West Bengal police in this case.
In his testimony, Dr Saha said that he visited the explosion spot at the accused Bablu Mondal’s house prepared a one Spot Visit Report and submitted it to SP Birbhum.
In his cross-examination, PW6 said that he did not take any police assistance for examination of the spot. Dr Saha failed to mention the names of any of the local witnesses in his report. He did not fully agree to the proposition that a proper report of spot verification can be prepared if the spot is visited within a very proximate time of the incident and added that proper verification of the spot can be done even after delaying of occurrence if the spot is duly guarded from being interfered. In his report, Dr Saha did not mention that the spot was duly guarded and protected.
The special public prosecutor argued that the co-villagers of the accused had adduced their evidence on the dock to establish the fact of the explosion at the residence of the accused. The evidence of expert witnesses proved the fact of the presence of explosive substance at the place of occurrence. The witness stood firm in the course of cross-examination and confirmed the prosecution case.
The defence counsel, on the other hand, argued that since no one was injured and no videography of the blast site has been done or produced before the court, the case was not “trustworthy” and demanded that the accused be acquitted.
Court observations and judgement
Based on the analysis of witness statements and evidence produced before the court, judge Shubhendu Saha observed that there indeed was an explosion at the house of accused Bablu Mondal on 20th September 2019.
“Now, while I had reached to the conclusion that the fact of explosion at the home of the accused by use of explosive substance is established, the presence of the explosive substance is also automatically proved. Thus by proving the fact the prosecution is successful is discharging the burden of proof. The prosecution has asserted the fact and proved the fact exists,” the judge said.
The court further held that the offence punishable u/s 3(a) of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for causing the explosion of a nature likely to endanger life and serious injury to property is established and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The court noted that while no one was injured in the explosion, it did cause damage to the accused’s residence.
The NIA court also held that the offence punishable u/s 5 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for possessing explosive under suspicious circumstances is established and proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
“The accused is liable to be convicted for such offences,” the court order reads.
The court ruled out any attempt to cause the explosion or the accused meeting any other person to hatch criminal conspiracy. “As such the accused is entitled to be acquitted from these charges,” the court said.
Addressing the question of whether the accused person possessed any arms in contravention of section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 and engaged in the sale or transfer of such arms, the court observed that “The very fact of recovery of the firearms from the possession of the accused, being not proved, makes this allegation for offence punishable under the Arms Act, 1959 not worthy of credence.”
Regarding the main question of whether accused Bablu Mondal is liable to be held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 286/120B of IPC read with section 3/4/5 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 25(1-A)/35 Arms Act, the court stated that the accused is fit to be held guilty.
“In the course of the discussion made above, the answer is apparent. It is already held that the accused is fit to be held guilty for an offence punishable u/s 286 of IPC and section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 since the for such offence is successfully brought home by the prosecution…” the court said.
The NIA court stated that it is not being “unmindful” of the fact that the writing in the FIR lodged by Helaram Das before the Officer in Charge is not proved and that Mrityunjoy Kumar (PW22) who scribed the FIR, identified the endorsement, however, denied the contents to be in his handwriting.
However, the Lokepur police station officer-in-charge’s endorsement receipt proves the reception of the FIR and it is also that it based on this FIR that an investigation was launched in this case.
“The steps taken in course of investigation are proved by the relevant witnesses and the fact and allegation of the prosecution case is proved during trial. As such the fact of non-marking of the FIR ultimately leaves no scar on the face of the prosecution case,” the court observed.
Thus, the court found Bablu Mondal guilty of the offence punishable under section 286 of the Indian Penal Code and he is convicted u/s 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He was also found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and he is convicted u/s 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Convict person namely, Bablu Mondal is hereby convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s. 286 I.P.C and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months; and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer S.I for further period of 7 days,” the court ordered.
The court further sentenced Bablu Mondal for ten years and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. “Bablu Mondal is hereby convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years; and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to suffer S.I for a further period of one month,” the court stated.
He was also convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine of Rs 5000.
The court, however, stated that these sentences would run concurrently. Meanwhile, the convict is allowed to challenge this judgment before the Calcutta High Court.
