Jharkhand High Court
Biglal Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1817 of 2017
....
Biglal Oraon ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Oraon ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Sweta Singh, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
.......
I.A. No. 6889 of 2022
07/10.08.2022 The present Criminal Revision No. 1817 of 2017 has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.11.2017
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2017 by the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi whereby learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2017 and
affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.04.2017 passed by Smt. Kumari Nikita, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 566 of 2014 whereby the
petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the N. I. Act
and has been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of six (6)
months and the learned Court below has also imposed a fine of Rs.
30,000/- alongwith the cheque amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- i.e. total
Rs. 8,50,000/- and in default of payment of, he has been further
sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month.
2. I.A. No. 6889 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of
this Criminal Revision Application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is innocent. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has retired from the post of DIG and the petitioner and
the opposite party no. 2 were known to each and there is every
chance of success in this Criminal Revision Application. It is
submitted that without prejudice to his case, the petitioner may
deposit the certain amount as may be directed by this Court. It is
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2022 and as
such, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also
opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has taken
friendly loan of Rs. 12,55,000/- from the complainant- opposite
party no. 2 and out of which, he has returned only Rs. 4,45,000/-
and he had given cheque of Rs. 8,20,000/- bearing cheque no.
000103 dated 20.01.2014 and the said cheque was dishonored due
to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2 had received the information through cheque
return Memo dated 24.01.2014. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has cheated the complainant- opposite party no. 2.
However, it is further submitted that the petitioner may atleast pay
50% of the cheque amount in question i.e. of Rs. 8,20,000/-.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It transpires that the petitioner is alleged to have taken
friendly loan of Rs. 12,55,000/- from the complainant- opposite
party no. 2 for running a petrol pump. It further transpires that 17
cases are pending against the petitioner. It also transpires that the
petitioner has returned Rs. 4,45,000/- out of Rs. 12,55,000/- and
he had given cheque of Rs. 8,20,000/- bearing cheque no. 000103
dated 20.01.2014 and the said cheque was dishonored due to
insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner and the
complainant -opposite party no. 2 had received the information
through cheque return Memo dated 24.01.2014.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the fact that petitioner is a retired Government Servant
and has remained in custody for one month, the petitioner- Biglal
Oraon is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Kumari Nikita,
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi or her Successor Court in
Complaint Case No. 566 of 2014 subject to the condition that one
of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner and the
petitioner will submit Demand Draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name
of complainant-opposite party no. 2 at the time of furnishing the
bail bond and the same may be disbursed to the complainant-
opposite party no. 2 on filing an application before the learned
Court below, but that will be subject to result of this Criminal
Revision Application.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6889 of 2022 stands allowed and
disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 1817 of 2017
Admit.
Since opposite party no. 2 has already appeared, there is
no requirement to issue notice upon him.
In the meantime, it will be desirable that both the parties
i.e. the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 may appear before the
learned Member Secretary, JHALSA on 30.08.2022. Thereafter,
the Member Secretary, JHALSA will appoint an
experienced/trained Mediator instantly to amicably settle the
dispute between both the sides and make an effort for
reconciliation between both the sides also and the Member
Secretary, JHALSA shall submit a report to this Court on or before
19.10.2022.
Put up this case in the first week of November, 2022
within first five cases at 2.15 P. M.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned
counsel for the petitioner and to learned counsel for the State and
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and be also sent to
learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for the needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
