Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1344 (JHR)

Sawna Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2025-05-08

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : I.A. No.3752 of 2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2013 by Md. Taufiqul Hassan, Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi by which the appeal has been dismissed and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2013 passed by Ms. Shweta Kumari, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No.1747 of 2012 arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.13 of 2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 39 of 2013, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a, and 26/ 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months and R.I. for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. I.A. No.3752 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of this Criminal Revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel 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 eye of law. It is submitted that the seizure list witnesses have not been supported the prosecution case. The petitioner was in custody 05.04.2012 to 03.09.2012 i.e. for more than five months and thereafter he has surrendered on 24.10.2024 till yet i.e. more than 6 months. Thus, the custody of the petitioner is around 11 months out of SI for 2 years and six months and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner had been apprehended with one country made pistol and the prayer for bail may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the seizure witness have not supported the prosecution case. 7. It appears that the petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months. 8. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the seizure witness have not supported the prosecution case. 7. It appears that the petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely Sawna Oraon is directed to be released on, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Ms. Shweta Kumari, Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ranchi or her Successor Court in connection with Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No.1747 of 2012 arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.13 of 2012 corresponding to T.R. No. 39 of 2013. 9. Thus, I.A. No.3752 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr.Rev. No.364 of 2025 10. Put up this case after six months ‘For Orders’.