[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Sunil Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.682 of 2025
Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Sunil Sah ...... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P
03/ 15.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. I.A. No.9084 of 2025 has been filed for suspension of sentence
and release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the instant criminal
revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Seraikella by judgement dated
14.08.2018 held the petitioner guilty under section 25 (1-B)a of Arms Act
and 26 of Arms Act in connection with G.R. Case No. 960/2015 and further
sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.
3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo three
months R.I for the offence under section 25 (1-B)a of Arms Act and
petitioner was further sentenced to undergo two years R.I and also to pay a
fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to
undergo three months R.I for the offence under section 26 of Arms Act and
all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He further submits that
said judgment was challenged before the learned Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2018 and by
judgment dated 20.05.2025, the learned appellate court has been pleased to
dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
remained in custody for one year during trial and thereafter petitioner has
voluntarily surrendered before the learned court on 20.05.2025 and since
then he is in custody. He further submits that maximum sentence is of two
years and petitioner has remained in custody for more than one and half
year. He further submits that police was investigating Kuchai P.S. Case No.
20/2015 and in that case petitioner was accused and during course of
investigation of that case petitioner was searched and arms and cartridge
were recovered and thereafter present case has been instituted. He then
submits that learned court has considered this aspect of the matter that on
the seizure list there is no independent witness however, the petitioner has
been convicted. He next submits that family members of the petitioner were
present at the time of seizure but in the seizure list their signature has not
been obtained. On these grounds he submits that petitioner may kindly be
released on bail during pendency of this criminal revision.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits
that from the possession of the petitioner arms and cartridge have been
recovered and the learned two courts have convicted the petitioner.
6. In the case of "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 in para 57 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"57.Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the
main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit
conferred under Section 436-A of the Code among
other factors ought to be considered for a
favourable release on bail."
7. Considering that the present case is outcome of Kuchai P.S.
Case No. 20/2015, there is no independent witness on the seizure list,
petitioner has remained in custody for one year during trial and voluntarily
surrendered on 20.05.2025 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner
has remained in custody for more than one and half year and maximum
sentence is of two years and further considering that this criminal revision
petition is pending and there is no likelihood of taking up of this revision
recently and further considering the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra) particularly para 57 and in the attending facts and circumstances of
the case, during pendency of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner
above named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Seraikella in connection with G.R. Case No. 960/2015, subject to the
condition that one of the bailor must be own relative.
8. I.A. No.9084 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing
I.A. No.13022 of 2025.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No.13022 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed.
11. Call for Trial Court Record.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dt. 15.12.2025
Satyarthi-
