IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1115 of 2025

Sandeep Sahu …… …. .... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

State of Jharkhand …… ….. .... Opp. Party

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocate

----

4/16.12.2025 I.A. No.14614 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 93

days in preferring instant criminal revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in preparation and filing of the instant petition the said delay has occurred and in view of

that the said delay may kindly be condoned.

3. In view of above, the said delay is hereby condoned and the instant

IA filed for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and disposed of.

4. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2023 whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.7.2023 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T.No.364 of 2015 (arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.81 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.259 of 2012) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two

years and six months and it has further been directed that the period undergone by the convict during investigation and trial of this case shall be set off.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has surrendered on 10.10.2025 and since then he is in custody. He further submits that the petitioner was in custody during the trial for two months 23 days. He then submits in view of that IA for regular bail may kindly be allowed. He also submits that the informant has not been examined in trial and one seizure witness is also not examined.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that one live cartridge has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested on the spot.

7. Considering that the informant is not examined and one seizure list witness has also not been examined in the trial and the petitioner has remained in custody for four months and 29 days and this criminal revision petition is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of this criminal revision petition of being taken recently, and further considering the judgment of the 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 as under:

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.

8. In view of above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, 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 learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla, in connection with S.T.No.364 of 2015 (arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.81 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.259 of 2012), with further condition that one of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioner.

9. I.A. No.14613 of 2025 filed for grant of bail to petitioner is allowed and disposed of.

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

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated : 16^th Dec., 2025 SI/