Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Mahto @ Vikash Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 289 of 2020
....
Vikash Mahto @ Vikash Kumar Mahato ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
.....
I.A. No. 6142 of 2021
08/12.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.
P.P. for the State.
2. The present Interlocutory Application No. 6142 of 2021
has been filed by the petitioner for bail during pendency of the
present Criminal Revision Application.
3. The present Criminal Revision has been filed under
Sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 31 of 2019 along with Criminal Appeal No. 156 of
2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad by
which learned Court below has dismissed (appeal appears to be
partly allowed) the appeal preferred by the petitioner and other co-
convict-Aftab Ansari and the Appellate Court has upheld the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms
Act and has set aside the conviction and order of sentence dated
08.03.2019 under Section 26 of the Arms Act although the
petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of two (2)
years under Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and to pay a fine
of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment, further sentenced to
undergo S.I. for a period of six months and the appellant was also
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months under
Section 26 of the Arms Act and by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 31.01.2019 passed by Sri Surendra Bedia
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Jharia
P. S. Case No. 223 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 3618 of
2017 [T. R. No. 1301 of 2019].
4. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the
learned Court below are not sustainable in the eye of law. It has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegation of recovery of one pistol from the petitioner is false and
concocted. It is submitted that all the witnesses are the police
personnel and no independent witnesses had been examined and
also seizure list witnesses were not examined by the learned Court
below. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody from
29.06.2017 to 05. 01.2018 i.e. for more than six months and he has
remained in custody from 02.09.2021 till date i.e. for more than
seven months and as such, his total period of custody is around
thirteen (13) months and as such, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail. It is submitted that the petitioner along with
another co-convict were apprehended with one country made
pistol each. It is submitted that the witnesses had stated that the
pistol was recovered from this petitioner and as such, bail is fit to
be rejected.
6. Perused the impugned judgment and Lower Court
Records and considered the submission of both the parties.
7. It transpires that all the witnesses are the police personnels
and no independent witness was examined and also seizure list
witnesses were not examined by the learned Court below. It also
transpires that the informant of this case had not been examined by
the learned Trial Court below. It further transpires that the
petitioner was in custody from 29.06.2017 to 05. 01.2018 i.e. for
more than six months and he has remained in custody from
02.09.2021 till date i.e. for more than seven months and as such,
his total period of custody is around thirteen (13) months.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the
petitioner, Vikash Mahto @ Vikash Kumar Mahato is directed to
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with Jharia P. S. Case No. 223 of 2017 corresponding
to G. R. No. 3618 of 2017 [T. R. No. 1301 of 2019], subject to the
condition that one of the bailor must be own relative of the
petitioner and the petitioner shall remain present at the time of
final hearing of the present appeal.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6142 of 2021 stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
