[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[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
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. 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.
3. 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
1 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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
2 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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 charge-
sheeted witnesses.
4. 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
3 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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.
5. 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.
4 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
6. 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.
7. 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 Magistrate-
IV, 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
5 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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.
8. 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
6 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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.
9. 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:-
“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
7 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]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 build-
up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and
the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
and this Court cannot consider the defence of the petitioner before
allowing the prosecution to prove his case.
10. 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
8 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:23365]
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.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any
merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 07th of August, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
9 Cr. M.P. No.1910 of 2025
[ad_2]
Source link