Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.609 of 2020
---------
Dinesh Mahato ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ram Bachan Singh ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Jha, Adv.
---------
Order No.11 Dated 06th July, 2022
I.A No.3282 of 2022
Heard Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel for the
petitoner, Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the
State and Mr. Prabhash Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the
Informant.
2. The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.3282 of
2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail
during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.
3. The Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for challenging the order dated 09.06.2020 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in Criminal
Appeal No.218 of 2018 by which, the said Criminal Appeal was
dismissed and the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.10.2018
passed by Shika Agarwal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad
in C.P Case No.1317 of 2016 (T.R No.1819 of 2018) by which,
the petitoner has been convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act and
has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.62,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, the petitioner has further been sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that Samdih
of the complainant, at whose instance, the petitioner had given an
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was not examined by the complainant
before the learned court below and the witnesses have not stated
about the exact date of payment of money towards the friendly
loan. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
28.03.2022 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has also
opposed the bail for bail and has submitted that there is concurrent
finding of fact of the learned Courts below and the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
It is further submitted that the petitioner had given money by way
of friendly loan of Rs.6,000,00 and the petitioner has given a
cheque of an amount of Rs.6,000,00/- however, the same had
bounced due to insufficient money.
7. Perused the Interlocutory Application, Lower Court Records
and considered the submission on behalf of the parties.
8. It transpires from the complaint that there is no specific date
of giving friendly loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner by the
complainant. It also appears that Samdih of the complainant, at
whose instance, amount was given, has not been examined by the
complainant. It also appears from cross-examination of the
complainant that he had received an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
through his Samadih from S.B.I. Bokaro and it was to be
presumed in the garb of providing job to the petitioner and the
petitioner had stayed even in Calcutta.
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, Dinesh Mahato, 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 Miss. Shikha Agrawal, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad or her Successor Court in
connection with C.P Case No.1317 (T.R No.1819 of 2018),
subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be relative
of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3282 of 2022 stands allowed and is
accordingly disposed of.
Criminal Revision No.609 of 2020
11. Admit.
12. Accordingly, put up this case after four months for hearing.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Raja/-
