Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Tulsi Joshi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2025
Decided on : 04-03-2025
Key Points: - Delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application was condoned due to the petitioner being in custody since 11.11.2022. (!) (!) - The petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 392 IPC and Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for each offence with fines; the delay condonation was part of proceedings leading to bail. (!) - Bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each to the satisfaction of the SDJM Ranchi. (!) - The court considered custody duration and the context of a co-accused receiving bail while allowing conditional release. (!) (!) - The order states that the recovery of firearms from the petitioner does not preclude bail, given the proportional consideration of custody. (!) - The revision was filed challenging judgments affirming conviction and sentence; the appeal was dismissed previously, leading to the current bail order. (!) - The order directs sending a copy to the learned Court below and places the case along with a related revision (Cr. Revision No. 1062 of 2024) for scheduling. (!) (!) (!) - Co-accused, Pankaj Kumar Paswan, had been granted bail in a separate revision, cited in support of bail consideration. (!) - The petitioner remains in custody since 11.11.2022 and seeks bail during pendency of revision; the state opposed bail due to firearms recovery. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing condoned due to custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court acknowledges arguments and sets further hearings. (Para 3 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. arguments on legality and bail for petitioner. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision to allow bail due to extended custody. (Para 7) |
| 5. bail granted; conditions stipulated. (Para 11 , 12) |
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. 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.
A court may grant bail considering the duration of custody, despite serious charges, when supported by comparable cases.
The court condoned a significant delay in filing a revision application and granted bail based on the petitioner's lengthy custody and the circumstances of the case.
The court condoned the delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application and granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent further criminal conduct.
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.
The court condoned a 588-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision under the Limitation Act due to the petitioner's custody and financial constraints, emphasizing leniency in such circumstances.
The court condoned a 212-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application based on the petitioner's financial hardship and ignorance of prior judgments, granting provisional bail during the appeal....
Conviction for illegal possession of firearms upheld, resulting in a three-year sentence; bail granted pending appeal based on the consideration of petitioner's custody history.
The court emphasized that the duration of custody is a significant factor in considering bail applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
