Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 56 of 2021
Ravi Kumar Gupta ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajendra Singh Saini ...... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhori Avinash Kumar, Advocate
For the State :Mr. P.D. Agarwal, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey , Advocate
.....
Order No. 10/ Dated: 05.07.2022
This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner for challenging the judgement dated 24.09.2020
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum
Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2019 by which
the Criminal Appeal referred by the petitioner has been
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum
Jamshedpur affirming the and judgment of conviction dated
12.09.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.09.2019 passed by
Shri Abhinav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur , in
C/1 Case No. 405 of 2016, whereby the petitioner was
convicted under section138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and
was sentenced to undergo S.I. for nine (09) Months with an
order to pay compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/- under section
357 (3) of Cr.P.C to the complainant.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned counsel for the State.
3.It is submitted that the judgment and order passed
-2
by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in eye of law.
It is submitted that there is no date of taking loan amount and
the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- has not been shown by the
complainant in his Income Tax Return. It is submitted that if
the petitioner is allowed to released on bail then he may be in
position to take further steps for settlement of
dispute with the O.P. No. 2 and at present he is ready to pay
of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Five lakhs only ) in the name of O.P. No.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
18.04.2022 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and further
submitted that at list 20% of the amount of compensation
may be deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that one
another case has also been instituted against the petitioner.
6. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and
considered the submission of both the sides.
7. It transpires from the complaint case that specific
date of advance payment of money by the complainant to
the petitioner is not mentioned. However the cheque was
presented on 16.11. 2013 and it was dishonored . It also
appears that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2022.
8. However, in view of the submissions make by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will take
steps for settlement after coming out from jail and also ready
-3
to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for the present, during the pendency of
the Criminal Revision the petitioner namely Ravi Kumar
Gupta is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Shri
Abhinav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur or his
Successor Court, in connection with C/1 Case No. 405 of 2016
subject to the condition that one of the bailers must be own
relative of the petitioner and subject to deposit of the Rs.
5,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft by the petitioner in the
name of the O.P. No. 2 at the time of furnishing bail bond.
Cr. Rev. No. 56 of 2021
Admit.
O.P. No. 2 has already appeared, hence no notice is
required to be sent.
Put up this case on 21.11.2022.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha
