Jharkhand High Court
Anamika Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 706 of 2022
....
Anamika Sinha ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Prabhati Sarkar ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
.....
I.A. (Cr.) No. 6324 of 2022
03/21.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant I.A. (Cr.) No. 6324 of 2022 has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1003 days in
filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 706 of 2022.
3. It has been submitted that the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is delay of 1003 days in filing the Cr. Revision No.
706 of 2022. It is submitted that after the judgment was passed on
31.07.2017, several attempts were taken by the petitioner for settlement
of the dispute and Rs. 5,60,000/- was paid to the opposite party no. 2 in
the Court below to enter into a compromise with the help of well
wishers, however, the compromise could not be possible at that time. It
is submitted that although the limitation has expired in the year 2017,
but the petitioner could not arrange the money during the said period
and in the meantime, due to effect of COVID-19 pandemic, there was
delay in arranging the money, however, today he is ready to pay Rs.
3,50,000/- by Demand Draft in the name of opposite party no. 2 and as
such delay of 1003 days has been occurred and as such, delay of 1003
days in preferring the instant Criminal Revision Application may be
condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
has submitted that delay has not been properly explained, however, if
the petitioner offers to pay the amount, the same may be considered.
6. Having gone through the averments made in the instant
Interlocutory Application, it appears that although the delay has not
been explained satisfactorily, however, considering the fact that today
the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft in
the favour of the opposite party no. 2 and the fact that the petitioner is a
lady and taking lenient view, the delay of 1003 days in preferring the
instant Cr. Revision No. 706 of 2022 is, hereby, condoned, subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party no. 2.
6. I.A. (Cr.) No. 6324 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A. (Cr.) No. 6325 of 2022
7. I.A. (Cr.) No. 6325 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 389(1) of the Cr. P. C. for suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the
present Criminal Revision Application.
8. The present Criminal Revision No. 706 of 2022 has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IX, Jamshedpur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Jamshedpur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2016 and
affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.01.2016 passed by Sri. Ashok Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Jamshedpur in connection with C/1-Case No. 1768 of 2009 by
which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the N. I.
Act and has been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of one (1)
year and to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- with the
further direction that the amount already given by the accused to the
complainant i.e. Rs. 5,60,000/- shall be deducted from the amount of
compensation.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
10. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 5,60,000/- to the
complainant i.e. the opposite party no. 2 before the learned Court
below and the learned Trial Court has directed to deduct the said Rs.
5,60,000/- from the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. It is
further submitted that the total principal amount of Cheque is Rs.
12,50,000/- and the petitioner is ready to pay rest of the principal
amount i.e. Rs. 6,90,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to
pay Rs. 3,50,000/- today in the name of opposite party no. 2, Prabhati
Sarkar out of the Principal amount of Rs. 6,90,000/-. It is submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2022 and as such, she may
be enlarged on bail.
11. 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 been arrested after a long period after issuance of warrant of arrest
and as such, the petitioner may be directed to pay the entire amount
and as such, prayer for bail of the petitioner is fit to be rejected.
12. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- today in the name of
opposite party no. 2, Prabhati Sarkar out of the principal amount of Rs.
6,90,000/- by today itself and rest of Rs. 3,40,000/- will be
paid by 10.08.2022 after being released from the jail.
13.Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
14. Perused the Records and considered the submission of both
the sides.
15. It appears that the petitioner is ready to pay entire principal
amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- and has also already paid Rs. 5,60,000/- in
the learned Court below.
16. Considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to settle the
dispute with the opposite party no.2 and considering the fact that the
petitioner is ready to deposit the Demand Draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the
name of opposite party no. 2, Prabhati Sarkar and also the petitioner is
further ready to pay Rs. 3,40,000/- i.e. the rest of the principal amount
to the opposite party no. 2 by the next date fixed and also considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-Anamika Sinha
is directed to be released on provisional bail for three (3) months on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri. Ashok
Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur or his successor
Court in connection with C/1-Case No. 1768 of 2009 subject to the
condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall deposit
the Demand Draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- before the office of learned
Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
17. Put up this case on 10.08.2022.
18. The opposite party no. 2 will be at liberty to withdraw the
said Demand Draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the office of the learned
Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Learned Registrar
General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi shall release the amount on
the satisfaction of the opposite party no. 2.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
