Kumar Abhilash @ Pappu Singh @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3074 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr. Revision No. 1218 of 2017
                                      .......

Kumar Abhilash @ Pappu Singh @ Kakku .... ....Petitioner

-Versus-

                 The State of Jharkhand                                      ....      ....Opp. Party

                 CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
                                                      .......
                 For the Petitioner           : - Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Adv.
                 For the State                : - Mr. Tapas Roy, APP
                                              .....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

........

08/24.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as State.

The revisionist has filed the present criminal revision for release of the licensee rifle, which was seized in connection with Deoghar Town P. S. Case No. 283 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 737 of 2017 on 06.05.2017.

It has been alleged that the petitioner has misused the license and shown the firearms and has assaulted the officials of the Electricity Department and in this way, he has put obstruction in performing duty to the Government Employee.

Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 of the Cr. P. C. for release of the licensee firearms and ammunition, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

By relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 28, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that seized articles should be released as it is wastage of national resources and usually the police is unable to maintain the seized property. On the above submission, prayer for release has been made.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that it is case of misuse of the firearms and as such, the said firearms should not be released to the revisionist as the case relating to the incident is already pending.

In that view of the matter, I find no merit to interfere with the impugned order.

However, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for proper custody and up keeping of the licensee arms and ammunitions.

With the above observations and directions, the present revision is, hereby, dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/