Jharkhand High Court
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 2022
....
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali @ Md. Rahmatullah
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kahkansha Parveen ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
.....
I.A. No. 2149 of 2022
06/08.07.2022 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State and Mr.
Arun Kumar, learned counsel of the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant I.A. No. 2149 of 2022 has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 906
days in filing the instant Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022.
3. It has been submitted that the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is delay of 906 days in filing the Criminal
Revision No. 17 of 2022. It is submitted that the petitioner has no
knowledge and as such, he could not file the Criminal Revision in
time and as such delay of 906 days has been occurred and he is in
custody for around nine months and as such, delay of 906 days in
preferring the instant Criminal Revision Application may be
condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the limitation
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also
opposed the limitation petition and has submitted that some cost
may be awarded.
6. Having gone through the averments made in the instant
Interlocutory Application and considering his custody and taking
lenient view, the delay of 906 days in preferring the instant
Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022 is, hereby, condoned, subject to
payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party no. 2- Kahkansha
Parveen.
7. I.A. No. 2149 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No. 2290 of 2022
8. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State and Mr.
Arun Kumar, learned counsel of the opposite party no. 2.
9. I. A. No. 2290 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision
Application No. 17 of 2022.
10. The present Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022 under
Section 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I. Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of
2014 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-I. Khunti has
dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2014 by affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2014
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti
in connection with Complaint Case No. 50 of 2002 whereby the
petitioner has been convicted under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay
fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6)
months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of fine, he has further been
sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months in both Sections each.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the judgments and sentences passed by the learned Courts below
are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there are
contradictory evidence of the witnesses. It is submitted that opposite
party no. 2 has already taken Talak from the petitioner in the year
2006. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2021
and as such, he may be enlarged on bail.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the
petitioner has thoroughly neglected his wife and four children and
demanded dowry. It is submitted that the occurrence has taken
place prior to Talak, if any, between the petitioner and the opposite
party no. 2, however, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
has submitted that he has no knowledge with regard to khulla
between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and as such, the
prayer for bail is fit to be rejected.
14. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
15. It transpires that the petitioner has been convicted under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and he has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of two(2) years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and further
sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months and
to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
16. It also transpires that the petitioner is in custody since
10.08.2021.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also considering the custody of the petitioner, during pendency of
the Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner namely
Mohammad Rahmatullah Ali @ Md. Rahmatullah 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 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Khunti in connection with Complaint Case No. 50 of 2002 subject
to condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the
petitioner.
18. I.A. No. 2290 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022
Admit.
Lower Court Records have already been received.
Put up this case after six months.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
