Jitendra Kumar Bhuinyan @ Jitendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ....... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 245 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jitendra Kumar Bhuinyan @ Jitendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ....... Opp. ... on 7 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Revision No. 830 of 2024
Jitendra Kumar Bhuinyan @ Jitendra Bhuinyan
                                        ......          Petitioner
                      Versus
The State of Jharkhand                .......        Opp. Party
                      ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, APP

-----------

th 06/Dated:07 May, 2025 I.A. No.783 of 2025

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by Sri Rajesh Sharan Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr. Appeal No.19 of 2022 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2022 passed by Sri Harshit Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No.184 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.260 of 2020 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of Arms Act and Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and R.I for one year respectively and fine of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively.

2. I.A. No.783 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and there is false allegation of recovery of fire arms. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since six (06) months and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. It appears that there is recovery of one Pistol and one Riffle from the possession of the petitioner.

7. Thus, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.783 of 2025 stands rejected.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-