Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Vishwas @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 2616 of 2020
in
Cr. Revision No. 149 of 2020
...
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Vishwas @ Sandeep Biswas .... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dr. Bhola Nath Mahto. ..... Opposite Parties
...
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
...
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate.
...
I.A. No. 2616 of 2020
...
09/07.04.2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and
grant of ad-interim bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of the
revision.
2. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2019,
passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2017, affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2016,
passed by the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo
at Tenughat in C.P. Case No. 195 of 2013/T.R. No. 482 of 2016,
whereby the petitioner has been found guilty and convicted for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of
Rs.3,04,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs four thousand), which is to be paid
as compensation to the opposite party no. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Twenty five Thousand) in the court below in two installments within
a month and prays that the provisional bail granted vide order dated
15.04.2020, and extended vide orders dated 26.06.2020, 11.08.2020
and 24.08.2020 be confirmed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2
has vehemently objected and submitted that the conduct of the
petitioner is not above board as he has not abided by the orders of this
Court. It is argued that the grounds on which, the impugned judgment
has been challenged, has been discussed and considered by the court
below and the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is submitted that the
petitioner has been adopting a dilly-dallying tactics for escaping the
punishment. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, there is no
cogent reason for extension of the provisional bail granted to the
petitioner.
5. Heard. If the petitioner deposits Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand) by 20th April, 2021 in the court below, he shall be
enlarged on provisional bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at
Tenughat, in connection with C.P. Case No. 195 of 2013/T.R. No. 482
of 2016. Thereafter he shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)
by 19th of May, 2021 in the court below and in default, thereof, the
provisional bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and
court below shall take necessary coercive steps against the petitioner.
The deposited amount shall be disbursed in favour of the opposite
party no. 2.
6. In the result, I.A. No. 2616 of 2020 stands disposed off.
...
Cr. Revision No. 149 of 2020
...
1. This revision shall be heard.
2. Admit.
3. The lower court record has already been received.
4. Office to list this revision under the heading 'For Hearing' in
seriatim.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
APK
