Jharkhand High Court
Raju Kumar Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 236 of 2021
.....
Raju Kumar Ganjhu ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, 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.
.....
I.A. No. 5983 of 2021
06/11.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the State.
2. The instant I.A. No. 5983 of 2021 has been filed under
Section 374(2) of the Cr. P. C. for suspension of sentence and for grant
of bail to the appellant during pendency of the instant Criminal Appeal.
3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 17.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2019
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.
T. No. 324 of 2016 arising out of Chanho P. S. Case No. 29 of 2016
corresponding to G. R. No. 1906 of 2016 by which the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/35
and 26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of five(5) years and pay the fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under
Section 25(1-A)/35 of the Arms Act and in default of fine, further
sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two(2) months and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five(5) years and fine of Rs.
5000/- for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and in
default of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a
period of two(2) months. All the sentences have been directed to be run
concurrently.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is innocent. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered
from the possession of this appellant and there is recovery of one
9.MM loaded pistol with live cartridges with the co-accused Laxman
Ganjhu and knife was recovered from the co-accused Umesh Ganjhu.
It is further submitted that most of the prosecution witnesses are the
police personnels. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since
19.12.2019 and as such, he has completed half of the sentence and as
such, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant is associate of the
co-accused Laxman Ganjhu and Umesh Ganjhu and he was
apprehended by the police personnel and as such, his prayer for bail is
fit to be rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the both the sides.
8. It transpires from the record that the appellant along with some
other accused persons namely Laxman Ganjhu and Umesh Ganjhu were
apprehended by the police personnel with 9.MM loaded pistol with live
cartridges and knife. It further transpires that nothing has been recovered
from the possession of this appellant.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, during
pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the appellant- Raju Kumar Ganjhu is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi
in connection with S. T. No. 324 of 2016 arising out of Chanho P. S. Case
No. 29 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No. 1906 of 2016 subject to
condition that one of the bailers must be own relative of the appellant.
10. I.A. No. 5983 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
