Jharkhand High Court
Tentar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 310 of 2022
1. Tentar Yadav
2. Santu Mahto
3. Daulti Yadav ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhola Yadav ...... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
.....
Order No. 07/ Dated: 07.07.2022
I.A. No. 5701 of 2022 has been filed for suspension of
sentence and release on bail of the petitioner No. 1 namely Tentar
Yadav, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.
2.The Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2022 has been filed on
behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 07.04.2018
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2013 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar , in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of
2013 whereby the leaned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.02.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Madhupur, in PCR Case No. 290 of 2001 , corresponding to T.R. No.
24 of 2013 by which the petitioners have been convicted under Sections
147/323/427/379 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of one (01) years for offence under section 14
of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
one (01) year under for offence section 323 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one(01) year for offence under
section 427 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
-2
period of two (02) years for offence under section 379 of Indian Penal
Code. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
4. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the
learned Courts below are not sustainable in eye of law and witnesses
have contradictory statement. It is submitted that the case has been
compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that
the petitioner no. 2 and 3 namely Santu Mahto and Daulti Yadav have
already been exempted from surrendering in the learned Court below
vide order dated 23.06.2022 passed by this Court. It is submitted the
petitioner No. 1 namely namely Tentar Yadav is in custody since
10.02.2022 and hence, the petitioner No. 1 namely Tentar Yadav may be
enlarged on bail.
5. No objection has been raised on behalf of the learned
A.P.P. for the State .
6. On the other hand, also no objection has also been raised
on behalf of the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that
the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2
and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 admitted factum of
compromise.
7. Perused the FIR and Lower Court Record of this case and
joint compromise petitioner and considered the submission of both the
sides.
8.It appears that there is land dispute between the petitioners
and O.P. No. 2.
-3
9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for both parties
that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
the petitioner No. 1 Tentar Yadav 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 the
learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in connection
with PCR Case No. 290 of 2001 corresponding to T.R. No. 24 of 2013.
11. Thus, I.A. 5701 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 310 of 2022
Admit.
Put up this case on first week of September, 2022.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
