Bench rejected regular bail prayer for petitioner in Arms Act case due to recovery of an effective country-made pistol from his possession, overriding arguments regarding procedural defects and lack of independent seizure witness.
Prayer for grant of regular bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]
B.A. No. 7767 of 2020
….... Guddu Singh @ Nikhil Kumar Singh …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party -----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, A.P.P -----
02/Dated: 06/10/2020:
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is defect no.9(i) in the bail application as pointed out by the stamp reporter but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defect within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard as it is a regular bail application in which petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2020.
Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merits but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect within 30 days after the physical court starts.
Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defect.
Heard, learned Sr. counsel, Mr. A.K. Kashyap assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anurag Kashyap and learned counsel for the State, Mr. V.K. Vashistha.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No.190 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 25(1-B) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the FIR, while Police was investigating Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No.189 of 2020 and co-accused, Nitesh Kumar Sharma disclosed in the said case and confessed that he along with one Chandan Kumar sold one Pistol of 7.65 mm to Guddu Singh (petitioner).
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that pursuant thereto Police made a raid in the house of petitioner and recovered one country-made pistol from the bed of the petitioner.
-2-
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that an empty country-made pistol has been recovered without any cartridge, as such, it is of no use.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is violation of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., as no independent witness of the neighbouring house has been made seizure witness in this case.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is surprising that Police has registered FIR being Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No.190 of 2020 separately though disclosure and recovery of arms was already the subject matter of investigation of prior FIR being Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No.189 of 2020, as such, the entire procedure is bad in law.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner being a student of I.A. in J.S. College, Daltonganj and he has no criminal antecedent, as such, this Court may grant bail to the petitioner who is in custody since 14.07.2020.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that country-made pistol which was examined by the Sargent Major and found that effective fire-arms has been recovered from the bed of the petitioner, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that so far Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is apparent from the FIR that police officer has categorically stated that independent witnesses were not available, as such, Police constable witnesses have been made witness to the seizure list. This fact has to be ascertained before the learned trial court so as to take benefit under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and since there is recovery of fire-arms from the bed of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this
stage.
( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving possession of a country-made pistol.
Whether the violation of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. regarding seizure witness justifies granting bail despite recovery of fire-arms.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Guddu Singh @ Nikhil Kumar Singh
The State of Jharkhand
KAILASH PRASAD DEO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
