RANCHI, India, Jan. 14 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 15:

I.A. No.10285 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 755 days in preferring instant criminal revision petition which occurred as the petitioner was not able to engage any lawyer and this petition has been entrusted to him by Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and thereafter the criminal revision petition has been filed and in view of that such delay has occurred.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent State has got no objection for the same.

3. In light of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court finds that sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of such delay, and accordingly, the said delay is hereby condoned. The instant I.A stands allowed and disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to under go RI for two years for offence under section 26 (1) with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to under go RI for three months and sentenced to under go RI for three years for offence under section 27 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months and now the sentences are directed to run concurrently passed in G.R. No.417 of 2016, arising out of Sahibganj (T) PS Case No.85 of 2016 [T.R.No.1114 of 2020]. He then submits that said judgment dated 15.2.2020 passed by C.J.M. Sahibganj was challenged before the learned appellate court of learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No.32 of 2020 and said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 29.3.2023.

5. He next submits that petitioner has remained in custody for four months and 7 days. He then submits that the petitioner has earlier filed Cr. revision being Cr. revision no.646 of 2023 which was dismissed in default and was not decided on merit. He further submits that this revision petition is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of this criminal revision being taken up recently and considering the period of sentence the petitioner may kindly be released on bail. He further submits that two independent witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-6 have not supported the seizure. He then submits that the prosecution witnesses are police officials.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there are concurrent finding of two learned courts and in view of that prayer for bail may kindly be rejected.

7. Considering that the petitioner has remained in custody for 11 months 7 days, whereas maximum sentence is of three years and PWs 1 and 6 have not supported the seizure and rest of the witnesses are police officials and in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde v. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421 and further in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein at paragraph no.57 it has been held that:

57. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436-A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail.

7. In view of above, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, above named, and accordingly, the instant I.A. filed for grant of bail, is allowed, and hence, the petitioner above named is hereby directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this Criminal Revision petition, on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Sahibganj, in connection with G.R. No.417 of 2016, arising out of Sahibganj (T) PS Case No.85 of 2016 [T.R.No.1114 of 2020] with further condition that one of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioners.

8. Call for the scanned copy of the trial court records.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.