Rajan Baitha @ Rawan and Another vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are two petitioners in the present case. So far as the petitioner No.- 1 is concerned, two cartridges were recovered from his possession and so far as petitioner No.-2 is concerned, one country made pistol was recovered along with one cartridge. The learned counsel submits that as per the records, the date of incident is 13.06.2010 and the petitioners were convicted vide judgment dated 16.03.2013 and on the date of conviction, the age of the petitioner No.-1 was 22 years and that of age of petitioner No.-2 was 21 years and accordingly, they were around 18 and 19 years accordingly on 13.06.2010. The learned counsel has referred to Section 25(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and submits that in view of sub-Section 2, the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the petitioners is one year with fine or with both and for that purpose, he also refers to Section 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Arms Act. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than a year and the period of custody of the petitioners have been from 13.06.2010 to 13.02.2011 at the stage of trial and then from 17.03.2015 to 30.06.2015 when the matter was pending before this Court. He submits that the petitioners were enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.06.2015 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The learned counsel has also submitted that he would look for any judicial pronouncement in connection with the issue which he has argued before this Court today and place the same on Monday i.e. on 24.08.2020.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State submits that he shall also examine the issue and advance his argument on the next date.

Post this case on 24.08.2020.