-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 484 of 2022

….

Prashant Pradhan @ Prashant Kumar Pradhan

…… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand P

2. Sri Bajrang Mahto

…… Opp. Parties

-----

Present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate

Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A. P. P.

JUDGEMENT

C.A.V. on 03.08.2022

Pronounced on 25/01/2023

The instant Criminal Revision Application has been filed

on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.05.2022

passed in S. T. No. 161 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-IV, Hazaribagh by which learned Additional Sessions

Judge-IV, Hazaribagh has rejected the discharge petition filed by

the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. and imposing a

cost of Rs. 5,000/- in connection with Korrah P. S. Case No. 158

of 2021 corresponding to S. T. No. 161 of 2022 under Section

25(1A)/26 of the Arms Act.

2.

As per the FIR, it is alleged on the self-statement of SI

Bajrang Mahto O/C Muffasil P. S Hazaribag recorded on

29.11.2021 that at about 14:45 PM during crime checking at PS

Gate they signalled a Fortuner car to stop, but the driver tried to

alight from car and run away but he was stopped. It is alleged that

when enquired he disclosed his name as Prashant Pradhan. On

getting suspicious, they tried to find independent witnesses, but

due to fear of Prashant Pradhan none came forward. It is further

alleged that one 9 MM country made pistol full with 8 cartridges

-2-

were found from his full pant and Rs 14,200/- from his shirt's

pocket. A country made revolver and huge quantity of cartridges

were kept in the bag in the dashboard of the vehicle.

3.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there is no

independent eye witness of the occurrence. It is submitted that the

Petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence

whatsoever. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely

implicated and all the allegations are fabricated and concocted

one. It is submitted that the case is false and fabricated one as it is

apparent that the arrest was made in front of the Muffasil Thana

gate by the officer in charge of the thana, who is also the

informant of the case but the case has been lodged in Korra Police

Station. It is submitted that it is surprising that none of the police

personnel from the Korra PS accompanied the informant at the

time of routine inspection within their jurisdiction. It is submitted

that there is not a single independent seizure list witness. It is

submitted that the seizure list was prepared after registration of the

FIR. The signature of the Petitioner on the seizure list was not

made available to the petitioner. It is submitted that as per

allegations, the Petitioner was wearing a full pant and shirt.

However, as per the information obtained through the RTI, the

Petitioner was wearing a tracksuit at the time of his entry into the

jail in the evening. It is submitted that it is alleged that arms were

recovered by Muffassil police, Hazaribag. Muffassil police station

is under CCTV coverage, therefore, the petitioner filed a petition

to call for CCTV footage of alleged occurrence to show that entire

case was planted one at the instance of business rivals of the

-3-

petitioner. That the area of arrest is under CCTV coverage. The

Petitioner had filed one application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C

praying the Court to call for CCTV footage which was dismissed,

vide order dated 16.