Jharkhand High Court
Baikunth Ravidas vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.459 of 2022
---------
Baikunth Ravidas ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Collector, Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P
For the O.P No.2 : None
---------
Order No.05 Dated 11th August, 2022
I.A No.6724 of 2022
1. The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.6724 of
2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during
pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.
2. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2022
passed in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2019 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad, by which, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Dhanbad has partly allowed and partly dismissed by
acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 466, 471 and
474 of the I.P.C, however, learned Appellate Court below has affirmed
the conviction against this petitioner and others for the offence under
Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of the I.P.C. Although, the learned Trial
Court i.e, Mrs. Swati Vijay Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad has convicted the petitioner and others for the offence under
Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 474B and 120-B of the I.P.C. and has
been sentenced them including the petitioner to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay the fine of
Rs.5000/- each. However, both the learned Courts below appear to
have erred on the question of conviction on certain penal section and
awarding the sentences.
3. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
4. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 despite
sending the notice in the light of the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by
this Court.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner
is a retired Head Clerk in the office of the District Collectorate,
Dhanbad. It is submitted that sanction was not obtained before
initiating criminal proceeding and even after institution of the criminal
case against him. It is further submitted that I.O, during his cross-
examination has admitted at paragraph No.17 that he has not seized
the Register in question, from which, the certified copies were issued.
It is further submitted that specific role of this petitioner has not been
proved during the trial by the prosecution. It is further submitted that
the petitioner was in custody from 18.07.2007 till 15.09.2007 (i.e
around two months) and thereafter, he has surrendered in the learned
Court below on 12.07.2022 and since then, he is in custody and hence,
he may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for bail and has submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have
supported the allegation against this petitioner for committing the
forgery. It is further submitted that P.W.5 i.e, I.O has fully supported
and corroborated the prosecution case against this petitioner.
7. Perused the L.C.R and considered the submission on behalf of
the parties.
8. It transpires that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R,
However, during the course of investigation the petitioner has been
made an accused . It also appears that the petitioner is a retired Head
Clerk of the District Record Room. It also transpires that the learned
Courts below have not considered the defence of the petitioner. It is
further transpires from the L.C.R that the petitioner was in custody
from 18.07.2007 till 15.09.2007 (i.e around two months) and
thereafter, he has surrendered in the learned Court below on
12.07.2022.
9. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and on the
facts and in the circumstances of this case during pendency of this
Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely, Baikunth Ravidas, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of Mrs. Swati Vijay Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Dhanbad or her Successor Court in connection with Dhanbad
P.S. Case No.179 of 2006, arising out of G.R No.733/2006,
corresponding to T.R No.10/2019, subject to the condition that one of
the bailors must be close/own relative of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No.6275 of 2022 stands allowed and is
accordingly disposed of.
Criminal Revision No.459 of 2022
11. Admit.
12. Issue notice.
13. Accordingly, put up this case in the month of January, 2023 under
the heading "For Hearing".
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Raja/-
