Jharkhand High Court
Rajaram Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 4370 of 2020
and
I.A. No. 4460 of 2020
in
Cr. Revision No. 211 of 2020
...
1.Rajaram Mandal
2.Chhedan Mandal @ Chedan Mandal
3.Manik Mandal .... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
...
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
...
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravidas, APP
...
I.A. No. 4370 of 2020
...
06/09.02.2021
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 petitioners, during the pendency of the
revision.
2. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2019,
passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rajmahal
in Cr. Appeal No. 37 of 2019, affirming the judgment dated
16.05.2019, passed by the court of learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal in C.C.
No. 560 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No. 132 of 2019, whereby the
petitioners have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under
Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner no. 1,
Rajaram Mandal has also been found guilty and convicted for the
offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners
have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and the petitioner no. 1, Rajaram Mandal
has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3
years for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P.
Perused the record. It appears that petitioner no. 1, Rajaram
Mandal in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., has
admitted that he has solemnized a second marriage with Mangari Devi
without the consent of the wife. Petitioner no. 2, Chhedan Mandal @
Chedan Mandal and the petitioner no. 3, Manik Mandal are the father-
in-law and the brother-in-law.
Considering the omnibus allegation, as against the petitioner
no.2, Chhedan Mandal @ Chedan Mandal and the petitioner no. 3,
Manik Mandal, they are directed to be enlarged on bail, during the
pendency of the revision, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand), each, with two sureties of like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal in connection with C.C.
No. 560 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No. 132 of 2019, subject to the
condition that they shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, each,
in the court below.
4. So far as the petitioner no. 1, Rajaram Mandal, is concerned, at
this stage, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge him
on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is, hereby, rejected.
5. Petitioner no. 1, Rajaram Mandal is at liberty to renew his prayer
for bail, if the revision is not taken up for hearing within six months.
6. In the result, I.A. No. 4370 of 2020 stands allowed to the extent
as stated above.
...
I.A. No. 4460 of 2020
...
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to
inadvertence, the present interlocutory application has been filed and
he is not pressing the same.
2. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, I.A. No. 4460 of 2020 stands disposed off, as not pressed.
...
Cr. Revision No. 211 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
