Sanjay Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:23365]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1910 of 2025

------

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar, S/o- Late Ramesh Prasad Singh, aged about 54 years, R/o- Village Nima, P.O- Dhanarua & P.S.Dhanaurua, District- Patna, Bihar

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus … The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶9

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 06.04.2024 and the order framing charge dated 23.11.2024 as well as the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No.546 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.543 of 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi respectively has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26(1) & 35 of the Arms Act and also framed the charge for the said offences.

¶10

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused person of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.294 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶11

¶12

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶13

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶14

and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is also an accused of Jehanabad (Kadhona O.P) P.S. Case No.293 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the third case in which the petitioner is an accused is Masodhi P.S. Case No.230 of 2022 involving the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was absconding and hence, he could not be arrested in connection with the said three cases. The police from the State of Bihar intimated the Sadar Police Station, Ranchi that the petitioner who is the absconding accused person of the said case is hiding near the PHED Colony near Booty More and requested the Sadar Police Station, Ranchi to co-operate in arresting the petitioner. Police registered a Sanha in the police station in this respect and raided the house of Rakesh Kumar @ Chunnu and the petitioner who was hiding in the house of Rakesh Kumar tried to flee away on seeing the police party but he was arrested. The petitioner was identified by the in-charge of the team of Bihar, S.T.F. The petitioner admitted his involvement in the said three cases in connection of which he was absconding. On search being carried out in the room in which the petitioner was hiding, a 0.314 Bore Rifle with a magazine, 21 rounds of live cartridges, a pouch designed to store the cartridges and other articles were seized by police and when the police demanded the documents regarding the rifle and live cartridges from the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar and the wife of Rakesh Kumar; no legal document for possessing the said the firearm and ammunitions, could be produced by anyone of them. The petitioner admitted before the police that

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶17

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶18

by using the rifle, he has committed the said three offences, in which he was absconding. Consequent upon the seizure of the said illegally kept fire-arm being a regular rifle, the Sub-Inspector of Police of the said police station submitted a written report to the Officer in-Charge of Sadar Police Station, Ranchi and on the basis of the same, Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No.546 of 2023 was registered. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner finding allegations against him to be true, of having committed the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25(i-B)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act 1959 and basing upon the same vide order dated 06.04.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi took cognizance of the said offences for which the charge-sheet was submitted. Police paper was supplied to the petitioner on 23.11.2024 and on the same day after supplying the police paper, the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi considered framing of charge and after such consideration, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a, 26(i) of the Arms Act, 1959. The contents of the charges was read over and explained to the petitioner-accused person in Hindi to which the petitioner-accused person denied and claimed to be tried. The learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi thereafter, ordered the office clerk to issue summons to the chargesheeted witnesses.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Minakshi Bala vs. Sudhir Kumar & Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 142 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration the

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶22

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶23

requirement of complying with the provision of Section 239, 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of framing of the charge. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner is based merely on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that the rifle was seized from the house of Rakesh Kumar but from the premises occupied by the tenant namely Chandra Bhushan Kumar, who was serving in Indian Army and transferred from Ranchi but could not shift his family to his transferred place of posting and police has unnecessarily shown the rifle recovered from the premises in possession of Chandra Bhushan Kumar, to be a seizure from the petitioner. It is next submitted that the seized rifle is a licensed rifle in the name of Chandra Bhushan Kumar. It is then submitted that Section 26(i) of the Arms Act, 1956 is not attracted in the facts of the case.

¶24

It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1972) 2 SCC 194 that, in para-5 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had in so many words mentioned that the word ‘possession’ used in Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 means; firstly, the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly, that possession need not be actual physical possession but can be constructive, having a power and control over that weapon, so that his possession thereon continues despite physical possession being with someone else.

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶27

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶28

It is also submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before framing of the charge. Hence, such framing of charge is most perfunctory and has been made in a clandestine manner without according any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶29

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the contention of the petitioner that the seized fire-arm belongs to someone else is a defence of the petitioner. The petitioner has to prove its license in accordance with law. The petitioner has also to prove his defence that the rifle was not kept by him in the room, from which he was arrested, while hiding himself, being an absconded accused-person of three murder cases, of the three different police stations but it, being a settled principle of law that the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi is not empowered to look in to the defence of the accused-person, at the time of framing of the charge, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi has not committed any error in framing the charge. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was represented by a private lawyer. It is also submitted that the undisputed fact remains that on 23.11.2024, the petitioner was present before the trial court and the charge which was framed on that day, was read over and explained to the petitioner by the learned Judicial MagistrateIV, Ranchi. There is no material available in the records nor is it even the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner ever wanted to file a petition to discharge him from the case or intimated the learned Magistrate that

¶30

¶31

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶32

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶33

inadequate time being given to him, to properly defend his case. It is next submitted that, having not done so, it is not open for the petitioner to raise a fresh ground for the first time in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is then submitted that if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR, the material collected during the investigation of the case and the charge-sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, both the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a & 26(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality involved in the order impugned; this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶34

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in possession of fire-arm and ammunition in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 i.e. possessing a fire-arm without a legal licence. There is also direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner did the said act in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 in such a manner as to indicate an intention that such an act may not be known to the public servant or police officer, because the petitioner, who is the absconded accused person of the said three cases as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, was hiding himself with the firearm used in the said three offences of commission of murder of three different persons. So, it is obvious that such hiding with illegal possession of firearm was done with the intention that

¶35

¶36

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶37

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶38

such act may not be known to the public servant or police officer; otherwise, the public servant or police officer in discharge of his duty, will take the petitioner to custody. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that if the allegations against the petitioner as made out in the FIR, which was found to be true during the investigation of the case by the police and consequently, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the materials that were collected during the investigation of the case are considered to be true in their entirety, prima facie offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a as well as Section 26(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 is made out against the petitioner.

¶39

Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was in possession of and control of the fire-arm seized though he is not licensee nor could he produce any document for possessing the firearm, but he used the firearm in committing murder of three different persons. So, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution case is of such a nature that it can undisputedly be said that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the firearms. The contention of the petitioner that someone else was the licensee of the said seized rifle, is a defence which is required to be proved by cogent evidence as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 , para-11 of which reads as under:-

¶40

“ 11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even

¶41

¶42

Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶43

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶44

assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06 : 30 a.m.; the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a buildup of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶45

and this Court cannot consider the defence of the petitioner before allowing the prosecution to prove his case.

¶46

So far as the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for hearing is concerned, as has rightly been submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that the petitioner was on bail and he was represented by a lawyer on the date of framing of charge. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was physically present in the court on 23.11.2024 when the charge was framed against him. The undisputed fact also remains that the charge was read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi to which he denied and claimed to be tried. There is no material available in the record to suggest that the petitioner ever wanted to file a discharge application. Nor is there any material available in the record to suggest that the petitioner wanted more time to put forth his contention, at the stage of the framing of charge but such time was not granted to the petitioner. In the absence of any such material available in the records, this Court do not find any illegality either in the order dated 06.04.2024 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence upon submission of the charge-sheet or the order dated 23.11.2024 by which the charge has been framed against the petitioner; of course, the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, has

¶47

8 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025

¶48

[2025:JHHC:23365]

¶49

not filed the Form of framing of the charge in this case, in which the details of the date, place and the manner of occurrence are mentioned by the court, which frames the charge and which are explained in details to the accused against whom the charge has been framed.

¶50

In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶51