Nutan Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2532 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Revision No. 707 of 2021
                                    ....

            Nutan Devi                                     ...... Petitioner
                               Versus
            1.The State of Jharkhand
            2. Dinesh Kumar Singh                          ...... Opp. Parties
                                  -----
          CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
                                  -----
            For the petitioner      : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate
            For the State           : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P.P.
                                        .....
05/08.07.2022       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.
           P.P. for the State.

2. The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2019 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur by which learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2019 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2019 passed by Ms Mariyam Hembram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 2763 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No. 922 of 2019 convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced her to undergo S.I. for a period of six (6) months and further directed to pay Rs. 3,25,000/- to the complainant as compensation within a period of one month and in default of payment of compensation amount, the petitioner is further directed to undergo S.I. for a period of three(3) months.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a lady and she is in custody since 25.03.2022 i.e. for more than three and half months and has completed more than half of the sentence. It is further submitted that even the complainant while examining as C.W.-1 has stated that the money was given in

presence of one Mamta Chakraborty, but the said Mamta Chakraborty has not been examined by before learned Court below and as such, she may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Perused the Records and considered the submissions of both the sides.

6. It transpires that Lower Court Records have not been received. However, the petitioner is a lady and she is in custody since 25.03.2022 i.e. for more than three and half months and has completed around half of the sentence and hence her prayer for bail is being considered.

7. From perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Court below, it appears that the complainant has himself stated before the learned Court below that the amount in question was given in presence of Mamta Chakraborty, but the said Mamta Chakraborty has not been examined before the learned Court below. It has also come in the evidence that the petitioner has disputed the identity of the opposite party no. 2- Dinesh Kumar Singh and D. W. -1, Nutan Devi, (i.e. the petitioner herself) and D. W.-2 Manorama Devi have stated that the complainant is not the right person and the complainant has not submitted his Aadhar Card and the real Dinesh Singh has died, however, defence version has not been considered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur and even learned Appellate Court has not considered the defence of the petitioner while passing the impugned judgment.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady, during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Nutan Devi 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 Ms Mariyam Hembram, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Jamshedpur or her successor Court in connection with C/1 Case No. 2763 of 2013 corresponding to T.R. No. 922 of 2019.

Cr. Revision No. 707 of 2021 Admit.

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 under registered cover with A/D and ordinary process and for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today, failing which this Criminal Revision Application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records. Put up this case after six weeks.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/