Jharkhand High Court
Bimal Yadav Son Of Kishun Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal(SJ) No. 880 of 2023
Bimal Yadav son of Kishun Yadav, resident of village-Katarganj Jirwabari,
P.O.- Jirwabari, P;.S.- Jirwabari (OP), District- Sahibganj ( Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr Advocate
: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, APP
--------
05 / 01.08.2024
I.A. No. 11669 of 2023
The Instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2023 and order of
sentence dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
I, Sahibganj, in Sessions Trial No. 167A of 2016, ( arising out of Borio (J)
P.S. Case No. 55 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 157 of 2016)
whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court convicted the appellant
under section 25 (1-B)a/26(I) of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo RI
for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 25(1-B)a of Arms Act
and in case of default of making payment of fine, he is to further undergo SI
for 1 month. Furthermore, he is also sentenced to undergo 7 years of RI with
a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 26(I) of Arms Act, and in case of default
in payment of fine he is to further undergo SI for 1 month. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently. 8 months 17 days period of
custody, during trial is directed to be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution story in short is that one Rishikesh Kumar Rai
P.S.I of the Jirwawadi O.P. recorded his self-statement on 16.04.2016 in the
evening hour. He along with the raiding party were on duty and arrived near
Saksharta More where he received information that few persons are sitting
with arms and they are intending to commit any cognizable offence. They
proceeded towards the place and found that six to seven persons were
gossiping at place and as soon as the police party was seen approaching, all
of them wanted to escape but anyhow the police party succeeded to
apprehend two persons and others succeeded to escape. The persons who
escape opened blank fire and thereafter the villagers arrived at the P.O. and
further in presence of the independent witnesses, seizure list was prepared by
the police. According to the self-statement of informant one country made
automatic pistol with magazine having three live cartridges were found from
the possession of Bimal Yadav.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both
the seizure list witnesses i.e. PW 9 and PW 10 have not stated that any
recovery or any arms or immunizations was recovered in front of them or in
their presence. Counsel has further pointed out to the cross-examination of
PW 9 para-3 wherein he has deposed that one day after occurrence police
had come to his residence and taken thumb impression on a blank piece of
paper and he does not know what was written in that blank piece of paper.
Counsel, therefore submits that by this itself it is fully demonstrated that the
allegations are totally false and fabricated even otherwise it cannot be
sustained. Counsel has also pointed to the evidence of PW 10 who is other
seizure list witness who has stated that the seizure was not made at the
alleged place of occurrence but rather they have taken the signature in the
police station and, therefore, both the seizure list witnesses are doubtful and
totally false. Counsel has further indicated to para 5 of the interlocutory
application and pointed that another co-accused, namely, Hakim Sehikh
from whose possession allegedly one country made pistol was recovered,
has been granted bail in I.A. No. 2417 of 2018 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 361
of 2018 by order dated 29.06.2018 and further submitted that in both the
cases, allegations arise out of the same police station case number. Apart
from the aforesaid, counsel submits that the appellant has also spent about
nine months in custody and, therefore in totality of circumstances, he may be
allowed the privilege of bail.
The learned counsel for the State, learned APP has opposed the
bail prayer of the appellant and submitted that as many as 11 witnesses have
supported the prosecution case and the custody is totally insufficient and,
therefore, prayer for suspension of sentence may not be allowed.
Having heard both counsels, noted the submissions, gone
through the records of the case available, submissions of seizure list
witnesses and the cited suspension of sentence order and in the facts and
circumstances of the case , I am inclined to suspend the sentence and release
the appellant, named above, on bail, during pendency of this criminal
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-I, Sahibganj in connection with S.T. No. 167A of
2016, ( arising out of Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2016, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 157 of 2016) subject to the condition that the appellant will
submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his
mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep
active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior
permission of the court.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 11669 of 2023 stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Sharda/
