Anil Surin vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1898 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 I.A. No.1956 of 2021
                         With
                 I.A. No.4406 of 2020
                          In
              Cr. Revision No.1580 of 2019

     Anil Surin
     @ Anil Sureen                           ......      Petitioner

                            Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                  .....    Opp. Party
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P

---------

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

---------

06/Dated: 14th June, 2021

I.A. No.1956 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 508 days in preferring the present revision.

2. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.

3. In view of the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly the delay is condoned.

4. I.A. No.1956 of 2021 stands allowed.

I.A. No.4406 of 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of the revision application.

2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment/ order dated 23.04.2018, passed by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - 1, Khunti, in Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2013, affirming the judgment

dated 24.10.2013, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti, in G.R. Case No.323 of 2011 (T.R. No.56 of 2013), corresponding to Rania P.S. Case No.18 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years on each count.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prayer of grant of bail to the petitioner has been made on the ground of period of custody, as he has remained in custody for about one year and eight months out of the awarded sentence of three years.

4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail, during the pendency of the revision application, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti, in connection with G.R. Case No.323 of 2011 (T.R. No.56 of 2013), corresponding to Rania P.S. Case No.18 of 2011.

However, the court below, before issuing the release order, shall satisfy himself regarding the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for one year and eight months.

6. I.A. No.4406 of 2020 stands disposed off.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-