IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 193 of 2025 ….

Sunit Kumar Dubey @ Pintu Kumar Dubey, aged about 30 years, son of Kunj Bihari Dubey, resident of village Chauka, P.O. Chauka, P.S Kandi, Dist. Garhwa.

……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD -----

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No. 04/12.12.2025 Heard both sides.

2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 193 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2025 passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, then learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa arising out of Kandi P. S. Case No. 20 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 409 of 2017 [Sessions Trial Case No. 40 of 2018 (A)] by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 25 (1-B) a and Section 26 (1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five (5) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of Three (3) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 26 (1) of the Arms Act.

However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

I.A. No. 14696 of 2025

3. I.A. No. 14696 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 430 (1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that earlier the prayer for bail was rejected in I.A. No. 9672 of 2025 vide order dated 27.08.2025 by this Court with liberty to move before this Court on completion of at least two years in custody.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no report of any sergeant major with regard to the arms and ammunitions as to whether the arms and ammunitions were effective or not. It is further submitted that the appellant was in custody since 05.03.2017 to 17.07.2017, 15.05.2019 to 11.06.2020 and thereafter he is in judicial custody since 29.01.2025 from the date of conviction i.e. for around two (2) years and four (4) months and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant was apprehended with one country made katta and with one

0.315 bore cartridge.

7. Perused the I.A. No. 14696 of 2025 and Trial Court Record and considered the submissions from both sides.

8. It appears that this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 had rejected the bail of the appellant with observations to renew the prayer for bail after completion of two years in custody.

9. It appears that the appellant was apprehended with one country made katta and with one 0.315 bore cartridge whereas the other co-convicts were apprehended with other arms and ammunitions.

10. It appears from the pleadings that the appellant was in custody since 05.03.2017 to 17.07.2017, 15.05.2019 to 11.06.2020 and thereafter he is in judicial custody since

29.01.2025.

11. It appears from the submission of the parties that the appellant was in custody for around 17 months during trial and for around one year after conviction. Thus, the appellant has remained in custody for around two (2) years and four (4) months.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the period of custody of the appellant, the appellant, namely, Sunit Kumar Dubey @ Pintu Kumar Dubey is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa passed in Session Trial Case No. 40/2018(A), subject to condition that one of the bailors must be close relative of the appell