Jharkhand High Court
John Sanjay Lamay vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.1145 of 2017
with
I.A. No.5692 of 2017
Johan Sanjay Lamay ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.1158 of 2017
with
I.A. No.5134 of 2017
Sohan Machhua ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
with
Cr. Appeal (S.J.)No.1177 of 2017
with
I.A. No.5222 of 2017
Markandey Singh Kuntiya @ Tusa ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Kumar Advocate
For the State : APP
03/Dated: 28/08/2017
IA. Nos. 5692 of 2017, 5134 of 2017 & 5222 of 2017
The aforesaid interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of the
appellants praying for grant of bail after suspending the sentence during the pendency
of the appeal, who preferred the aforesaid criminal appeals and by judgment of
conviction dated 28.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 29.04.2017 passed by Sri
Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Civil Court, Chaibasa in
Sessions Trial Case No. 266 of 2012, whereby and where under the appellants have
been convicted for the offence under sections 25(1A), 25(1B)a and 26 of the Arms
Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I for 7 years and fine of RS. 10,000/ each for
causing the offence punishable under section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, and in default of
payment of fine they have to undergo an additional R.I of six months,. The appellants
were further sentenced with imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/
each for causing offence punishable under section 25(1B) a of the Arms Act and in
default of payment of fine, the appellants will have to undergo an additional R.I of
three months and they were further sentenced with R.I of 7 years and a fine of Rs.
10,000/ each for causing the offence punishable under section 26 of the Arms Act and
in default of payment of fine, the appellants will have to undergo an additional R.I of
six months. The appellants were further sentenced with R.I of three years for causing
the offence punishable under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
It was submitted by the counsel for the appellantMarkandey Singh Kuntiya @
Tusa (in Cr. Appeal (sj) No. 1177 of 2017 that the appellant is in custody since
09.10.2012. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellantsJohan Sanjay Lamay and Sohan Machhua that the appellants are in custody since the date of judgment i.e 28.04.2017 and during course of trial they remained in custody about 10 months. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that prosecution has made out case that prohibited arms and ammunitions have been recovered from the appellantsJohan Sanjay Lamay and Sohan Machhua but referring to section 2 (i) of the Arms Act which reads as under:
"2(i) "prohibited arms" means (I) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles, continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty..........."
learned counsel for the appellants Johan Sanjay Lamay and Sohan Machhua has referred the evidence of P.W.9 and has submitted that no case under section 25(1A), 25(1B)a, 26 of the arms Act is made out.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby suspend the sentence awarded to aforesaid appellants and accordingly, above named appellants are directed to be released on bail during pendency of this instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousands)each, with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No. 266 of 2012 also subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of West Singhbhum district. The appellants are directed to deposit half of the fine amount before the trial court on the date of their furnishing bail bond.
IA. Nos. 5692 of 2017(Cr.Appeal (sj) 1145 of 2017, I.A. No. 5134 of 2017 (Cr. Appeal (Sj) No. 1158 of 2017 & IA. No.5222 of 2017 (Cr. .Appeal (Sj) No. 1177 of 2017 stand allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court through FAX.
Satyarthi (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)