JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Prasad, J.) I.A. No.521 of 2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2024 and sentence dated 24.08.2024 passed in S.T. Case No.518 of 2021 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.463 of 2018 by Sri Amit Shekhar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV- cum-FTC (CAW) Ranchi by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence 25(1-A) and 26(2) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six (06) years and R.I. for five (05) years respectively and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/-respectively. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. I.A. No.521 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that this is a case of recovery of one country made pistol from the open place from the house which was under construction and the informant has not identified the appellant during the evidence. It is submitted that the evidence of seizure witnesses is contradictory and as PW-6 and PW-7 have stated on the point of recovery of pistol and lodging of FIR and on the point of apprehending the accused-appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody from 17.08.2024 i.e. for about eight (08) months, and earlier also he had remained in judicial custody for around one month and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is a case of recovery of country made pistol which was found prohibited and Seargent Major had examined the said pistol and Magazine which were found to be prohibited arms. It is submitted that PW-6 is the seizure witness who has supported the case and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 5. It is submitted that PW-6 is the seizure witness who has supported the case and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that PW-6 has stated that this case has been instituted by his Mousera Brother Rinku @ Pankaj whereas PW-7 Pankaj Kalo has stated that they had gone to the house in question and then two person fled away and one boy had been apprehended and he proved the seizure list marked as Exhibit P-2/1 regarding the recovery of pistol but he further stated that this case has been instituted by one boy who had accompanied with him and who had written application marked as PW-4. 6. It also appears from the evidence of PW-2 that he failed to disclose the name of the person who had apprehended the appellant. 7. It reveals from the evidence of PW-5 i.e. retired Seargent Major that Desi Country pistol of 9 mm bore was tested and which was under the category of prohibited arms. It reveals that even the words mentioned in the pad of the pistol are grammatically incorrect. 8. It also appears that the I.O. of this case has not been examined by the prosecution. 9. It appears that the appellant has remained in custody for more than nine (09) months. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody, the appellant namely Ankit Purty is directed to be released, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri Amit Shekhar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV-cum-FTC (CAW) Ranchi or his Successor Court in connection with S.T. Case No.518 of 2021 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.463 of 2018 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the appellant. 11. Thus, I.A. No.521 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.