Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Singh @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 493 of 2023
Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Singh @ Chattan Jee
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr Advocate
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP
--------
03 /12.10.2023
IA No. 7572 of 2023
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel has appeared on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned APP has
appeared on behalf of the State.
2. I.A. No. 7572 of 2023 has been moved for suspension of
sentence or with prayer for bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal
in S.T. Case No. 164 of 2021 in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 60
of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 773 of 2021 registered under sections
385, 386, 387, 120B of IPC, under sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26(ii)/35 of
Arms Act and under section 17(i) (ii) of C.L.A. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
provision of section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is not applicable to this
appellant for which sentence of seven years have been imposed. Counsel has
taken us to section 25 (1-A) which reads as under:
25(1-A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of
section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend
to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine.
[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.]
4. Thereafter counsel has taken us to section 2 (i) of the Arms Act
wherein prohibited arms is defined.
(i) "prohibited arms" means-
(i) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied
to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure
is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the
missiles is empty, or
(ii) weapons of any description designed or adapted for the
discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such thing. And
includes artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank fire-arms and
such other arms as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited
arms;
5. The learned counsel says that the allegation is that he has only
been caught with country made pistol which does not by any scope come
under the aforesaid definition of prohibited arms. Learned counsel further
says that section 25(1-A) basically deals with the prohibited arms and by its
very definition, he would not come within the scope and ambit of this
section for which the punishment is imposed as 7 years. He says that at the
most he may without conceding or prejudicing himself submits that he may
came under the scope of section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act for which the
sentence imposed is of 2 years and thereafter he has submitted that for which
he has been in judicial custody since 05.05.2021 to 25.01.2022 during trial
of this case and he is in judicial custody since 22.06.2023 till date.
Therefore, for the purpose of bail and sentence imposed for two years, he
has already spent sufficient time in custody. Counsel has further submitted
that there is descrepency in the seizure list, further he has said that he has not
been convicted for the charges under CLA Act, neither for the charges made
under section 385 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code, so that may also be
considered.
6. The learned counsel for the State, learned APP has, on the
other hand, opposed the bail application or prayer for suspension of sentence
and said that from the seizure list it is apparent that recovery was made of a
country made pistol, eight and four pieces of live cartridges from the
appellant.
7 Having heard both counsels, having gone through the records
of the case available and in the facts and circumstances and the submissions
and arguments of the learned counsels, as stated above and also considering
the custodial period of the appellant, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant,
above named, on bail, during pendency of this appeal, 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-III, Chatra in S.T. Case No. 164 of 2021 in connection
with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 60 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 773 of
2021.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7572 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Sharda/
