Shahnawaz Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2183 Jhar

                                          1    Cr. Revision No.209 of 2023



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Revision No.209 of 2023

        Shahnawaz Ahmad                        .....        Petitioner
                                 Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                 ....           Opp. Party

               CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

        For the petitioner                 :   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
        For the State                      :   Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
                                       -----

4/16.06.2023 Heard learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

I.A. No. 3903 of 2023

2. It submitted on behalf of the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that this interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail during pending of this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2017, arising out of G.R. No.1558 of 2011, corresponding to Harla P.S. Case No.63 of 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro, whereby and where under, the appellant was convicted under Section 25(1-A), 26(20 of the Arms Act and has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence u/s 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence u/s 26(2) of the Arms Act and it is directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is in jail since 45 months including the pre conviction period and post-conviction period and as such more than the half of the sentence has already been served by the

appellant. Further it has been pointed out that the learned trial court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act in view of the categorical depositions of PW8, who stated in para 8 that the arms seized from the possession of the appellant was not prohibited arm and as such the offence punishable under section 25 (1-A) is not attracted. Further it has also been pointed out that no independent witness has been examined in this case and non-examination of the IO has caused prejudiced to the defense of the appellant.

4. In view of the fact that the formal proof of the place, time and date of the occurrence could not be substantiated and that becomes more relevant when there is contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses including PW9 with respect to the place and time of occurrence. Further it has also been pointed out that none of the witnesses has stated that there was any identification mark on the seized article including the arms and ammunition, which are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Further it is has been also been pointed out that the appellant is ready to pay the entire fine amount as awarded by the learned court below.

5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that all the witnesses have consistently and uniformly supported the case of the prosecution and therefore the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

6. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.

7. In the light of the persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant during pending of this appeal. Accordingly the appellant is directed to be enlarged on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2017, arising out of G.R. No.1558 of 2011, corresponding

to Harla P.S. Case No.63 of 2011, and subject to the condition that the appellant deposits the entire fine amount as awarded by the learned court below under both the heads /counts without being prejudiced to his right of defence.

8. The appellant is directed to furnish the money receipt of the deposited fine amount within four weeks.

9. Accordingly IA No. 3903 of 2023 gets disposed of.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) R.Kumar