Anand Kumar Singh @ Bidai Singh @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3619 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2022
                          ---------

Anand Kumar Singh @ Bidai Singh @ Anand Singh

..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party With Criminal Revision No. 721 of 2022

---------

1.Karan Singh @ Dablu

2.Jaipratap Singh @ Jaatru @ Jatru

3.Brijmohan Singh @ Mantu ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------

      For the Petitioners   :     Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate
                                    (In Cr.Rev. No. 409 of 2022)
                               :    None (In Cr.Rev. 721 of 2022)
      For the State            :    Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
                               :    Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Advocate
                                    (In Cr.Rev. 721 of 2022)
                               ----------
                          I.A. No. 8288 of 2023,
                      (In Cr. Revision No. 409 of 2022)
                                -------------

07/27.09.2023 I.A. No. 8288 of 2023 in Cr. Rev. No. 409 of 2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. I.A. No. 8288 of 2023 has been filed in Cr. Revision No. 409 of 2022 on behalf of the petitioner- Anand Kumar Singh @ Bidai Singh @ Anand Singh for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.

3. The Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2022, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with G.R. Case No. 1373 of 2020, corresponding to P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 394/411 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 (1-B) (a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of One (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. As per the F.I.R., it is alleged that while the informant-Shyam Kumar and other victim namely Anand Kumar Gupta and Mandeep Saw had boarded on the Truck on their way to Karchali, Bhandaria and when they reached near Aandha Mahua Chowk, the Truck was intercepted by the miscreants and they were

assaulted by the butt of revolver and articles like mobile phone, cash etc. were looted.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and confessional statement is not admissible. It is submitted that the seizure list witnesses, P.W. 1-Baijnath Saw and P.W.2-Noore Alam have not supported the seizure and had deposed that they have signed in the police station. It is submitted that P.W.-5, Shyam Kumar Saw is the victim, who had identified the petitioner in T.I. Parade, however, during Trial he has not identified and has stated that the accused were shown to him before the T.I. Parade. It is submitted that P.W.6-Anand Kumar Gupta has given similar statement that they were identified at the instance of the police during T.I. Parade and the petitioner was shown to them earlier, however, he has not identified the petitioner during trial. It is submitted that P.W. 10, during his examination at Para 4 and 5 has stated that recovered article was not put on T.I.P. properly and therefore, the seizure is doubtful. It is further submitted that P.W. 11 has conducted test of seized arms and ammunition, the sanction order is not proved and without sanction, charge against the petitioner under Arms Act cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the co-accused, namely Karan Singh @ Dablu, Jaipratap Singh @ Jaatru @ Jatru and

Brijmohan Singh @ Mantu (all petitioners of Cr.Rev. No. 721 of 2022) have been granted bail in Cr. Revision No. 721 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023 by this Court in I.A.No.5860 of 2023 and the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2020 and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that although the petitioner was not identified during trial, however, he was identified during T.I. Parade by P.W.-5-Shyam Kumar Saw, victim and Informant of this case and P.W.6- Anand Kumar Gupta. It is submitted that even pistol by which they were threatened and one cartridge was also recovered and as such, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

8. Perused the Lower Court Records and the I.A. No. 8288 of 2023 and considered the submissions of both the sides.

9. It appears that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 24.11.2022 in I.A. o. 4858 of 2022 with the observation "at this stage" and liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing three years of sentence.

10. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2020 and thus, the petitioner has completed more than three years of sentence.

11. It further appears that the co-accused, namely Karan Singh @ Dablu, Jaipratap Singh @ Jaatru @ Jatru

and Brijmohan Singh @ Mantu (all petitioners of Cr.Rev. No. 721 of 2022) have been granted bail in Cr. Revision No. 721 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023 by this Court in I.A. No. 5860 of 2023.

12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the custody of the petitioner and the fact that co-accused, namely Karan Singh @ Dablu, Jaipratap Singh @ Jaatru @ Jatru and Brijmohan Singh @ Mantu (all petitioners of Cr.Rev. No. 721 of 2022) have been granted bail in Cr. Revision No. 721 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023 by this Court, the present Petitioner, i.e petitioner in Cr.Rev no. 409 of 2022- Anand Kumar Singh @ Bidai Singh @ Anand Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa corresponding to G.R. No. 1373 of 2020, arising out of Bhandaria P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner.

13. I.A. No. 8288 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 409 of 2022 & Criminal Revision No. 721 of 2022

14. These Criminal Revision Applications will be heard.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases are directed to implead the informant as O.P.No. 2 in both the cases during course of the day.

16. Issue Notice to newly added O.P. No. 2 in both the cases, by way of both Registered Post as well as Ordinary process and for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.