Jharkhand High Court
Mustaque Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2021
....
1. Mustaque Ansari
2. Firdaus Alam @ Firdaus Ansari ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A. P.P.
......
09/06.02.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
26.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2017 by which learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lohardaga has dismissed the
Criminal Appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.04.2017 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar
Indwar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga in connection
with Kuru P.S. Case No. 35 of 2011 corresponding to G. R. No.
212 of 2011 (T. R. No. 62 of 2017) whereby the petitioners have
been convicted for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a and
26(1) of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of three(3) years each and to pay fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the
Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of three(3) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for
the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act.
All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the judgments and order passed by the learned
Court below are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted
that the petitioners have been arrested merely on suspicion. It is
further submitted that witnesses have given contradictory
statement on the point of recovery firearm and snatching of the
motorcycle. It is submitted that the learned Court below has
acquitted the petitioners under Section 414 of the Indian Penal
Code and as such, root cause of the offence is not proved. It is
submitted that the petitioner no. 1 Mustaque Ansari was in
custody for around 21 months prior to conviction and thereafter
he is in custody since 03.11.2022 till date i.e. for around two
years and the petitioner no. 2 Firdaus Alam @ Firdaus Ansari
was in custody for around four months prior to conviction and
thereafter he is in custody since 03.11.2022 till date i.e. total
around seven months. It is submitted that one country made
pistol and two live cartridges had been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner no. 1 Mustaque Ansari and two live
cartridges had been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner no. 2 Firdaus Alam @ Firdaus Ansari and as such,
they may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail. It is submitted that both the petitioners were
caught red handed and the witnesses have supported the
allegation against these petitioners and as such, prayer for bail is
fit to be rejected.
5. Perused the Lower Court records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
6. It transpires that the petitioners were caught red handed
while trying to snatch the motorcycle from two persons
Rajendra Tirkey and Amit Lakra and one country made pistol
and two live cartridges had been recovered from the possession
of the petitioner no. 1 Mustaque Ansari and two live cartridges
had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner no. 2
Firdaus Alam @ Firdaus Ansari.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also considering the period of custody of these petitioners,
during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the petitioner no. 1
Mustaque Ansari and the petitioner no. 2 Firdaus Alam @
Firdaus Ansari are 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 Sri Manoj
Kumar Indwar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga or his
Successor Court in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 35 of
2011 corresponding to G. R. No. 212 of 2011 (T. R. No. 62 of
2017), subject to the condition that one of the bailor must be
own relative of the petitioners.
Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2021
8. Admit.
9. Issue Notice.
10. Put up this case after one year under the heading "For
Hearing".
11. I.A. No. 5650 of 2021 is dismissed as not pressed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
