KAMESHWAR GANJHU ALIAS GUDDUWA GANJHU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - ASHOK KUMAR — Cr.A(SJ)/325/2019

Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010096972019

Filing Number

Cr.A(SJ)/7032/2019

Filing Date

25-Mar-2019

Registration No

Cr.A(SJ)/325/2019

Registration Date

27-Mar-2019

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ARMS & EXPLOSIVES ( 104 )

Sub-Category

Arms Act,1959 ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMESHWAR GANJHU ALIAS GUDDUWA GANJHU

    Adv. ARUN KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - ASHOK KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

    Case Summary The Jharkhand High Court quashed Kameshwar Ganjhu's conviction for illegal firearms possession under the Arms Act, finding critical procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court identified five major gaps: absence of independent witnesses during search and seizure, failure to search the officer conducting the search, seized weapons neither sealed nor marked for identification, no forensic examination proving the weapons' functionality, and unproven sanction order. These cumulative violations rendered the conviction unsustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 26-Jun-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay SinghView PDF

  5. 26-Jun-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay SinghView PDF

  6. 02-May-2019

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  7. 25-Mar-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.A(SJ)/325/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Jharkhand High Court quashed Kameshwar Ganjhu's conviction for illegal firearms possession under the Arms Act, finding critical procedural defects in the prosecution's case. The court identified five major gaps: absence of independent witnesses during search and seizure, failure to search the officer conducting the search, seized weapons neither sealed nor marked for identification, no forensic examination proving the weapons' functionality, and unproven sanction order. These cumulative violations rendered the conviction unsustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case