Md. Nasim vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 279 Jhar

                                  -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1529 of 2019

     Md. Nasim                                 ......       Petitioner

                              Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                    .....   Opp. Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

     For the Petitioner       : Mr. Md. Anisurzzama. Khan, Advocate
     For the State            : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P
                              ---------
          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.

---------

                th
09/Dated: 04         February, 2022

I.A. No.5319 of 2021

1. The present 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 24.07.2019, passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2019, whereby while upholding the charge under Section 498A of the Indian PenalCode, the revisionist has been acquitted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause, by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, vide order dated 19.03.2019, passed in G.R. Case No.1576 of 2008.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the criminal proceeding has been put into motion by the wife of the revisionist alleging that she has been harassed for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and she has been coerced to bring certain articles. The trial court has convicted the revisionist under Section 4 of the D.P.Act as

well as under Section 498A of the I.P.C while the appellate court has acquitted the revisionist for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P Act. Thus, the very basis of the torture has been disbelieved by the court below. On the above facts, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

5. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the appellate court has acquitted the revisionist for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P Act, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail, during the pendency of the revision application, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with G.R. Case No.1576 of 2008.

6. I.A. No.5319 of 2021 stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-