Enamul Haque @ Ainamul Haque @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 387 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 2019
                                        ....

Enamul Haque @ Ainamul Haque @ Md. Enamul Haque .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Daulat Tara .... Opposite Parties ....

            CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, Adv.
                For the State                   : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP
                                                ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

....

08/10.02.2022 I.A. No.6830 of 2021 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition.

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2017, who has affirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with T.R. No.783 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.1427 of 2011, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 498A & 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 504 of the I.P.C.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 498A and 504 of the IPC and he has acquitted from the charge under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. It has been further submitted that marriage has been solemnized in the year 2003 and thereafter a criminal case has been lodged for harassment under Section 498A of the IPC in which the revisionist has been convicted. It is a second complaint suppressing the earlier one. The court below after considering the evidence has convicted the revisionist but has acquitted from the offence under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The allegation suggests harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry but the petitioner has been acquitted from the said charge. Conviction under Section 504 of the IPC is unwarranted because that is not even the narratives of the prosecution case.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering the materials available on record and the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 11 months, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of this petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with T.R. No.783 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.1427 of 2011.

I.A. No.6830 of 2021 stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 1110 of 2019 Admit.

LCR has already been received.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/