Delay in filing appeals may be excused under the Limitation Act when supported by justifiable reasons, and prolonged custody may warrant bail during pending revisions.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 6970 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant I.A. No. 6970 of 2024 has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 753 of 2023.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of 94 days in filing the Cr. Revision No. 753 of 2023. It is submitted that due to financial crunch, the petitioner could not file this Criminal Revision Application within time. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2024 and earlier the petitioner had also remained in custody since 02.05.2017 till 13.11.2017 and as such, delay of 94 days in preferring the instant Criminal Revision Application may be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the State raised no serious objection.

5. Having gone through the averments made at para 4 to 8 of the instant Interlocutory Application and also considering the period of custody of the petitioner and taking lenient view, the delay of 94 days in preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 753 of2023 is, hereby, condoned.

6. Thus, I.A. No. 6970 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 7673 of 2024

7. The present Criminal Revision No. 753 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2018 by -Sri Dheeraj Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I -Sahibganj whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Sahibganj has dismissed the Appeal with modification in the order of sentence dated 31.01.2018 passed by Sri Anup Tirkey - Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections -25 (1 B) a/26 of the ARMS ACT and however, he has modified the sentence from R.I. for three (3) years to R. I. for eighteen -(18) months each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ each respectively, Although vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2018 passed by Sri Anup Tirkey - learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Mirzachowki P. S. Case No. 37 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 251 of 2017, the petitioner was -convicted for the offences under Sections 25 (1 B) a/26 of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three -(3) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ each respectively.However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

8. I. A. No. 7673 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the allegation of recovery of one loaded pistol and two live cartridges from the petitioner are false and concocted. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner had remained in custody since 02.05.2017 till 13.11.2017 and after dismissal of criminal appeal, the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2024 and as such, the petitioner has remained in custody for around 13 months and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

11. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for recovery of one