Jharkhand High Court
Ranjan Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 349 of 2021
....
Ranjan Kumar Verma ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Raj Kumar Poddar ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Verma, Advocate
.....
I.A. No. 3425 of 2021
05/27.07.2022 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. No. 3425 of 2021 has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during
pendency of the present Criminal Revision.
3. The Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2018 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi by which the Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2018 has been
dismissed with modification in the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.12.2017 passed by Sri Anuj Kumar, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 3030 of 2014 and
learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi had directed to the petitioner to
pay Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of compensation to the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 within four months and in case of
default of the said fine the accused/petitioner shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a compensation
of Rs. 7,30,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C. and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2017 passed
by Sri Anuj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint
Case No. 3030 of 2014 convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of one year
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of one month and further the
petitioner is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 7,30,000/- to
the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C.
4. 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 the petitioner is
not in a position to pay fine of compensation amount to the opposite
party no. 2 as he is in custody since 23.01.2020 and has served more
than the sentences imposed by the learned Court below. It is submitted
that there is no proof of receiving legal notice by the petitioner from
the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court had
directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,30,000/- by way of compensation to
the complainant/opposite party no. 2 under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P.
C. and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of one year, however
the learned Appellate Court has committed error by directing the
petitioner to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- by way of compensation to the
complainant-opposite party no. 2 within four months and in case of
default of the said fine the petitioner has been directed to undergo
imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a compensation
of Rs. 7,30,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 23.01.2020 i.e. for around more
than two and half years and as such, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is an accused in several
other cases with regard to the offence under Section 138 of the N. I.
Act and he has taken money from several other persons. It is submitted
that the petitioner has remained in custody, but the petitioner has not
paid a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- and the cheque issued by the petitioner
has bounced back with the endorsement due to insufficient of fund and
as such, prayer for bail is fit to be rejected.
7. Perused the Lower Court records and considered the
submissions of both the sides.
8. It transpires that the present case has been filed on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2 by way of complaint bearing Complaint Case
No. 3030 of 2014 for dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 5,30,000/- issued
in the name of complainant/opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner. It
also transpires that the Trial Court has also convicted the petitioner
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for
a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, the petitioner is further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a
period of one month and further the petitioner is directed to pay
compensation amount of Rs. 7,30,000/- to the complainant under
Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C. However, in Criminal Appeal, the
learned Appellate Court had directed to the petitioner to pay Rs.
5,50,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant-opposite party
no. 2 within four months and in case of default of the said fine the
petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and
also to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,30,000/- under Section 357(3) of
the Cr. P. C. The Appellate Court could not have awarded more than
the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court without issuing the
notice to the petitioner.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the period of custody, during pendency of this Criminal
Revision, the petitioner namely Ranjan Kumar Verma 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 Sri Anuj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi /or his
Successor Court in Complaint Case No. 3030 of 2014 subject to
condition that one of bailers should be relative of the petitioner.
Learned Court below is directed to release the petitioner on
bail, if not wanted in any other cases.
10. I.A. No. 3425 of 2021stands allowed and disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2021
Admit.
Since opposite party no. 2 has already appeared, there is
no requirement to issue notice upon the opposite party no. 2.
Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records
from the Court concerned.
Put up this case after six months.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
