Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1144 of 2023
Jagdish Sao ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
--------
03/12.10.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State
are present.
I.A. No. 8763 of 2023
2. The instant interlocutory application is for condonation of delay
of 462 days in preferring this Cr. Revision against the impugned order.
3. The reason is shown in para-3 of this I.A that the petitioner was
working as a daily wages labourer in Delhi. As he came to know in regard to
the dismissal of the appeal, he filed the instant criminal revision against the
same.
4. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court
in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018 it is found that the learned appellate court
while dismissing the appeal confirmed the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial court but did not direct the petitioner to surrender
before the trial court nor the trial court was directed to send the appellant in
jail to serve out the sentence.
6. In view of the above, the ground shown is found sufficient. The
delay of 462 days in preferring the Cr. Revision is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, I.A No. 8763 of 2023 stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 8761 of 2023
8. The instant interlocutory application is with the prayer for
suspension of the sentence and release the petitioner on bail during pendency
of this criminal revision.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been convicted by the trial court for the offence under section
25(1-B)a and 26 Arms Act in G.R. Case No. 45 of 2017/T.R. No. 1287 of
2018 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 06 of 2017 and sentenced for R.I
for 3 years and fine of Rs.2000/- for each and in default of payment of each
fine, he is further directed to undergo one month SI for each default vide
judgment dated 11.01.2018. The learned appellate court dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
court.
10. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court, it is
evident that two witnesses of the seizure memo PW9- Sunder Hansada and
PW10- Pardeep Sao both admitted their signature on the seizure memo yet
contended that they had no knowledge of the said case. Both the witnesses
have been declared hostile. The petitioner has served out the sentence of
eleven months (eight months during the trial and three months after the
judgment of the appellate court).
11. In view of the above contended to keep the sentence in abeyance
and to release the petitioner on bail during pendency of this criminal revision.
12. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. In view of the rival submission made and material on record, the
aforesaid IA is, hereby, allowed.
14. The sentence passed by the learned trial court which was
affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby kept in abeyance during
pendency of this criminal revision.
15. In consequence thereof, the petitioner is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
Cr. Revision No.822 of 2023
16. Admit.
17. Office is directed to call for the scanned copy of the LCR.
18. List on 14.12.2023.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
RKM
