Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Tulsi Joshi v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-04

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : I.A No. 2242 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 41 days in filing this instant Criminal Revision Application. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the learned Court below and the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2022 and hence, the delay of 41 days in filing this instant Criminal Revision may be condoned. 3. No objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2022, the delay of 41 days in filing this instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby condoned. 5. Thus, I.A No. 2242 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. 6. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed by Sri Diwakar Pandey, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2024 passed by Mrs. Smriti Topno, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 66/2023 (arising out of Macluskieganj, P.S Case No. 43/2022) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo S.I for three (03) years each and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- each respectively. I.A No. 1911 of 2025 7. I.A No. 1911 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and to grant bail to the petitioner during the pendency of this present Criminal Revision Application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the co-accused namely Pankaj Kumar Paswan has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2024 vide order dated 27.02.2025 and web copy of the said order is produced before this Court in course of the argument It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2022 (i.e for more than 2 years and 3 months) and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that firearms was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below, it appears that there is recovery of firearms from the possession of the petitioner 11. Considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely Tulsi Joshi is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two scurities of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Mrs. Smriti Topno, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi/or her successor Court in connection with G.R. Case No. 66/2023 (arising out of Maccluskieganj, P.S Case No. 43/2022). 12. Thus, I.A No. 1911 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below. Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2025 14. Let this case be placed along with Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2024. 15. Put up this case under the same heading in the month of September, 2025.