Biglal Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2628 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Cr. Revision No. 1817 of 2017
Biglal Oraon                                   ...... Petitioner
                      Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sanjay Oraon                             ...... Opp. Parties
                      -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

--------

For the Petitioner    : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State         : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP
                      -------
15/Dated: 04th August, 2023

This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.11.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2017 passed by Smt. Kumari Nitika, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- along with the cheque amount of Rs.8,20,000/- in connection with Complaint Case No.566 of 2014 and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been ordered to further undergo S.I for one month.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2022 and has not furnished the bail bonds and he has completed more than the sentence imposed by the trial court below. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody in other cases also and he has served the sentence passed in this case, hence necessary order may be passed.

3. On the other hand learned APP has submitted that petitioner has rightly been convicted by the learned court below. However, learned APP has further submitted that the necessary order may be passed.

4. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides.

5. It transpires that vide order dated 10.08.2022 the petitioner was granted bail by this Court, subject to deposit of Demand Draft of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of complainant-O.P. No.2 at the time of furnishing the bail bonds. However, the petitioner had not furnished his bail bonds and has remained in custody.

6. It has been informed to this Court that the petitioner is in custody in other cases also.

7. It appears from the record that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2022 and thus he has completed the sentence imposed by the learned court below.

8. Thus, this Cr. Revision No.1817 of 2017 is dismissed as having become infructuous as the petitioner has completed the sentence and he may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case(s).

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-