Munshi Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 901 of 2025
                               ....

            Munshi Mahto                                   ...... Appellant
                                    Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                          ..... Respondent
                                  -----
            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                  -----

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey , A P. P. ......

I. A. No. 13962 of 2025

05/15.01.2026 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2025 and sentence dated 19.09.2025 passed by Sri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 1220 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 4423 of 2015 [S. T. No. 58 of 2016] by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 25(1-A)/35 and 25(1-B)a/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven (7) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-A)/35 of the Arms Act and R.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)/a35 of the Arms Act.

However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. I. A. No. 13962 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for the suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

3. As per the FIR, on the disclosure of the appellant- Munshi Mahto that all the accused persons involved in the murder of one Nirmal Mahato are coming at Milan Hotel, Demotand. Thereafter, a raid was conducted by the Officer In- charge, Birju Ganjhu at Milan Hotel, Demotand and on seeing the police party, the accused persons started fleeing away, however, the police personnel had apprehended Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and who was identified on the disclosure of the appellant. It is submitted that a loaded country made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been recovered from the possession of co-accused- Bhuneshwar Mahto, whereas a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been recovered from the possession of co-accused- Pradeep Mahto and one mobile phone from the accused- Jageshwar Mahto and one mobile phone from the accused- Prakash Sao had been recovered.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case by the Informant. It is submitted that on the disclosure of the appellant, the police had apprehended the other accused persons namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and from the possession of co-accused- Bhuneshwar Mahto, a loaded country

made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been recovered and from the possession of co-accused- Pradeep Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been recovered and one mobile phone from the accused- Jageshwar Mahto and one mobile phone from the accused- Prakash Sao had been recovered.

6. It is submitted that the appellant was in police custody and as such, no firearms was recovered from the possession of the appellant, rather recovery had been made from the possession of the other co-accused namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao and the trial of other accused namely Jageshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao were separated.

7. It is submitted that during trial, the appellant was in custody from 17.10.2015 to 12.04.2019 i.e. for around three (3) years and six (6) months and after conviction, the appellant is in custody since 18.09.2025 i.e. for around four (4) months i.e. total around three (3) years and ten (10) months out of R. I. for seven (7) years and as such, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is no illegally and infirmity in the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and on disclosure of the appellant, four accused persons namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao were apprehended and from the possession of co-accused- Bhuneshwar Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been recovered and from

the possession of co-accused- Pradeep Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been recovered and one mobile phone from the accused- Jageshwar Mahto and one mobile phone from the accused- Prakash Sao had been recovered.

9. It is submitted that the appellant has got three (3) criminal antecedents.

10. It is submitted that several prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Birju Ganjhu is the Informant of this case, P.W.-2, Anil Kujur, P.W.-3, Motilal Ram, P.W.-4, Kishore Ravidas, P.W.-5, Sanjit Kumar Yadav, P.W.-6, Amarjit Kumar Paswan, P.W.-7, Suken Raut, P.W.-8, Satendra Kumar, P.W.-10, Remegius Toppo, P.W.-11, Mahanti Murmu, P.W.-13, Jitendra Kumar Singh have fully supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of firearms from the possession of the accused persons.

It is submitted that P.W.-9, Sriram Ram, is the IO of this case and who has also supported against the appellant. It is submitted that P.W.-12, Pandey Ajay Kumar is Sergeant Major in Police Centre, Hazaribagh and he has also supported the prosecution case and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

11. Perused the LCR and considered the submission of both the sides.

12. From perusal of the learned Trial Court Records, it transpires that the appellant was in custody in connection with Sadar (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 1170 of 2015 instituted under Section 364/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, it appears that on the disclosure of the appellant, four accused persons namely Bhuneshwar Mahto, Pradeep Mahto, Jugeshwar Mahto and Prakash Sao were

apprehended at Milan Hotel, Demotand and from the possession of co-accused- Bhuneshwar Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with four (4) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Samsung Mobile had been recovered and from the possession of co-accused- Pradeep Mahto, a loaded country made pistol with two (2) bullets of 9 mm in the magazine and a Mobile phone had been recovered and one mobile phone from the possession of co-accused- Jageshwar Mahto and one mobile phone had been recovered from the possession of co-accused- Prakash Sao.

13. It appears that although all the witnesses mentioned above have supported the prosecution case, however, it is also clear from the FIR itself and from the evidence of the IO and the Informant that the appellant was in police custody and he was present along with the police personnels.

14. It appears that during trial, the appellant was in custody from 17.10.2015 to 12.04.2019 i.e. for around three (3) years and six (6) month and after conviction, the appellant is in custody since 18.09.2025 i.e. for around four (4) months i.e. total around three (3) years and ten (10) months.

15. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and also considering the custody of the appellant, the appellant namely Munshi Mahto is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh/or his Successor Court in connection with Sadar (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 1220 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 4423 of 2015 [S. T. No. 58 of 2016] subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the appellant and the appellant

shall also file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that he will not get indulged in such type of crime in future again, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation his bail and the appellant will submit self-attested copy of his AADHAR Card and will also submit his mobile number before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court and the appellant shall file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that he will remain present at the time of final hearing of this Appeal, failing which bail of the appellant will be cancelled.

16. Thus, I. A. No. 13962 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 15.01.2026 Kamlesh/