Jharkhand High Court
Munna Chaudhary @ Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.697 of 2021
---------
Munna Chaudhary @ Choudhary ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shanti Devi ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Ms. Ganga Kacchap, Adv.
---------
Order No.05 Dated 23rd June, 2022
I.A No.2385 of 2022
The present Interlocutory Application being I.A No.2385 of
2022 has been filed by the petitioner for grant of bail during
pendency of the present Criminal Revision.
2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner for challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2019
passed in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2015 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1, Rajmahal, who has allowed the Criminal Appeal
No.77 of 2015 in part by acquitting two persons and also acquitted
this petitioner from the charge under Section 494 of the Indian Penal
Code but upheld and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Sri. Purushottam Kumar
Goswami, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal in Complaint
Case No.64 of 2009, corresponding to T.R No.852 of 2015 under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C, so far as this petitioner is concerned and
by which, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal has
convicted the petitioner under Section 498-A of the I.P.C and
sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
(three) 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment
of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 03 months and the petitioner has
further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 for the offence
punishable under Section 494 of the I.P.C and in default of payment
of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and both the sentences
have been directed to run concurrently.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that even during
trial the petitioner was ready to keep his wife and children. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has not performed the second
marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
13.11.2021 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed
the bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for
bail and has submitted that the petitioner has thoroughly been
neglected his wife and children. It is submitted that the petitioner
has performed second marriage with another girl on 27.11.2008 and
the petitioner has not maintained her.
6. Perused the Interlocutory Application and considered the
submission on behalf of the parties.
7. It transpires from the records of this case that the petitioner is
the husband. It appears from the averment made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to keep his
wife and children. Although, the allegation of performance of 2nd
marriage has been made but the name of the 2nd wife of the petitioner
has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Opposite Party No.2 and the learned Appellate Court below has
acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 494 of I.P.C.
8. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and on the
facts and in the circumstances of this case, during pendency of this
Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely, Munna Chaudhary @
Choudhary, 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. Purushottam Kumar Goswami
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal or his Successor Court in
connection with Complaint Case No.64 of 2009, corresponding to
T.R No.852 of 2015, subject to the condition that one of the bailors
must be close/own relative of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.2385 of 2022 stands allowed and is
accordingly disposed of.
Criminal Revision No.697 of 2021
10. Under the circumstances, let the case be referred to District
Legal Service Authority, Rajmahal.
11. It will be desirable that both the parties (i.e, the petitioner and
the Opposite Party No.2) shall appear before the District Legal
Service Authority, Rajmahal on 11th July, 2022
12. The Secretary, D.L.S.A, Rajmahal will appoint a Mediator for
an amicable settlement of disputes between both the sides.
13. The Secretary, DLSA, Rajmahal is directed to submit his
report before this Court on or before 16th August, 2022.
14. Accordingly, put up this case on 23rd August, 2022 under the
heading 'For Admission'.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Raja/-
