Jharkhand High Court
Neelam Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.939 of 2020
Neelam Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Yogendra Kumar Singh ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aanya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V. K. Vashistha, A.P.P
For the O.P. No.02 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
---------
The matter was taken up through Video
Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no
objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
---------
06/Dated: 01st September, 2021
1. Admit.
2. Call for scanned copy of the lower court record from the
court concerned.
3. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel, has appeared on
its own, on behalf of O.P. No.02, and as such, there is no
requirement of issuance of notice upon O.P. No.02.
I.A. No.4483 of 2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the petitioner,
during the pendency of the revision application.
2. This revision application has been filed against the
judgment dated 11.12.2020, passed by the court of learned
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Criminal
Appeal No.59 of 2020, affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.03.2020, whereby the
petitioner has been found guilty and convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the
court of learned S.D.J.M., Ghatshila, in Complaint Case No.95
of 2018. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months and to pay the compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) to the O.P. No.02/
complainant, in default thereof, to suffer S.I for one month.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P
and learned counsel for O.P. No.02.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the revisionist is a female and she is in
custody since 22.07.2021 in connection with the case lodged
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It has been further
submitted that the complainant/ O.P. No.02 and this
revisionist are brother and sister and there is money
transaction between the family members. One of the issue has
been raised in this case that whether in a family matters and
in family transaction, the offence under Section 138 of the N.I
is made out or not.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.02 while opposing the
prayer for bail has submitted that any money transaction is
covered under Section 138 of the N.I Act.
6. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties,
and the fact that the revisionist is a female, I am inclined to
suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail,
during the pendency of the revision application, on her
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
S.D.J.M., Ghatshila, in connection with Complaint Case No.95
of 2018 (T.R. No.46 of 2020).
7. I.A. No.4483 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
