Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Hadi @ Gopal Handi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1430 of 2019
---------
Gopal Hadi @ Gopal Handi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Krishna Kumar Gupta ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
---------
Order No. 10/ Dated: 20.07.2022
I.A. No. 4731 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner challenging the judgment order dated 27.08.2019 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge- II -cum- Spl F.T.C. ( C.A.W.),
Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2019 affirming the
judgment dated 03.01.2019 passed by Shri S.K. Chandra, Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class , Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 101
of 2018 (T.R. No. 07 of 2019) by which the petitioner has been
convicted under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of two (02) yeas and pay the compensation amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Five lakhs only) to the O.P. No. 2.
3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
4.It is submitted that the judgments and order passed by the
learned Courts below are not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted
that the witnesses have given contradictory statement. . It is submitted
that there is no specific date of handing over money by the
complainant to the petitioner and the matter of fact that the petitioner
used to take ration from the shop the complainant and handed over
cheque book to him . It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner
-2
during her evidence before the learned Court below as D.W. 2 has
supported the fact of taking ration. It is submitted that the petitioner is
in custody since 19.05.2022 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged
on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P has opposed the
prayer for bail.
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has also opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has taken Rs.
2,50,000/- ( Two lakhs fifty thousand only) on different dates and had
handed over cheque which had bounced book . It is submitted that
petitioner is working in C.C.L. and he had taken money on lend on
the ground of marriage of his daughters . It is further submitted that
the complainant may be directed to pay at least a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
( One Lakh only) for the present then the O.P. No. 2 may consider
his prayer and may have no objection . It is submitted that the
C.W. 1 has fully supported his case during the evidence and hence the
prayer for bail is fit to be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and
considered the submission both the sides.
8. It transpires from the complaint that there is no specific date
for giving money by the O.P. No. 2 to the petitioner . It also appears
that the petitioner is a C.C.L. Employee. It also transpires from the
cross examination of C.W. 1 that he could not say on which dates
and months he had given money to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two
lakhs only ) to the petitioner . He also could not say the date of
marriage of the daughters of the petitioner.
9. It also appears that even the complainant has admitted
during his evidence that petitioner used to take ration from his shop
and even the O.P. No. 2 has stated that the articles of his shop is worth
of Rs. 6,00,000/- ( Six lakhs) to 7,00,000/- ( Seven lakhs) only . It
-3
appears that D.W. 1 is the petitioner himself and stated during his
cross examination that the O.P. No. 2 kept the cheque book in the
shop and he is a C.C.L Employee. Even the wife i.e. D.W. 2 has stated
that the entire cheque book was kept by the complainant in his shop
and she also used to take ration from his shop of this complainant
i.e. O.P. No. 2.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the fact that the complainant failed to explain the specific
date and months of giving money to the petitioner and also
considering the custody the petitioner Gopal Hadi @ Gopal Handi 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 Sri S.K. Chandra , Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat or his Successor Court in
connection with in Complaint Case No. 101 of 2018 (T.R. No. 07 of
2019).
11. Thus , I.A. No. 4731 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 1430 of 2019
Admit.
O.P. No. 2 has appeared, hence there is no need to send in
notice afresh.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
