Jharkhand High Court
Ranjan Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 433 of 2021
....
Ranjan Kumar Verma ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Indra Bhusan Prasad Sinha ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. R. C. P. Sah, Advocate
.....
I.A. No. 8559 of 2022
07/16.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant I.A. No. 8559 of 2022 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. 433 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2017 by the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi by which the Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2017
has been dismissed with modification in the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by Ms. Shilpa Murmu,
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1269 of
2013 and learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi had directed to the
petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of compensation to the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 within three 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. 2,50,000/-
under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C. by modifying the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by Ms.
Shilpa Murmu, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint
Case No. 1269 of 2013, who had convicted the petitioner under Section
138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of
six(6) months and imposed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- under
Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C. along with the cheque amount of Rs.
2,30,000/-.
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 the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2021. It is further
submitted that the son of the petitioner has died on 07.09.2022 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 and has
cheated several persons 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. 1269 of 2013 for dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 2,30,000/- issued
in the name of complainant/opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner. It
further transpires that the Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2017 has been
dismissed with modification in the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by Ms. Shilpa Murmu, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1269 of 2013 and
learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi had directed to the petitioner to
pay Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of compensation to the omplainant/opposite
party no. 2 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. 2,50,000/-.
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 Ms. Shilpa Murmu, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi or her
Successor Court in Complaint Case No. 1269 of 2013.
I.A. No. 8559 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 433 of 2021
10. Admit.
11. Since opposite party no. 2 has already appeared, there is no
requirement to issue notice upon the opposite party no. 2.
12. Lower Court Records have already been received.
13. Put up this case after six months " For Hearing".
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
