Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2023
1 Cr. Revision No.875 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.875 of 2022
Jagdish Thakur ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jaiwanti Devi @ Barho Devi .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP
-----
6/6.02.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred
against the judgement dated 22.02.2017 passed by the court of learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh in Criminal
Appeal No. 28 of 2006, by which the learned court below has upheld
the judgment dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 1771 of 1997, T.R. No. 923 of 2006, by
which the learned trial court had held the petitioner guilty and
convicted him for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC
and he was awarded sentence to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of
₹500/- and in the default of payment of fine, he was directed to
undergo one month S.I. in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. No.131
of 1997.
3. It has been pointed out that the petitioner is an old man and is
suffering from severe infirmities and he had no knowledge about the
dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2006 and therefore he
could not file this criminal revision against the judgment of criminal
appeal passed on 22.3.2017 within the statutory period. It has further
been stated that he was not even communicated by the concerned
lawyer about the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 22.3.2017. It has
further been pointed out that the petitioner is the bhaisur (elder brother
of the husband of the complainant) and no specific allegation has been
attributed against him as evident from the FIR itself and the entire
allegations are omnibus and general in nature and due to bona fide
ignorance, the petitioner could not file this revision application within
the statutory period of time and therefore the inordinate delay of 1151
days has taken place in institution of this criminal revision application
and for condonation of this delay of 1151 days, an I.A. No.11559 of
2022 has been filed and since it was neither deliberately nor
intentional nor any willful default on the part of the petitioner, he will
suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the delay in filing the criminal
revision application is not condoned.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State did not controvert this fact that this petitioner is bhaisur of the
complainant and no specific allegation has been made against him in
the FIR.
5. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submission under
the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of 1151 days in filing
the criminal revision application is hereby condoned and the I.A. No.
11559 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.
6. Further one another I.A. No. 11558 of 2022 has been filed for the
release of the petitioner on bail during pending of this Criminal
Revision Application and the petitioner has been arrested on 3.7.2022
and since then he is languishing in jail.
7. It has further been pointed by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that without any iota of evidence, the Court
below has convicted this petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of IPC and the petitioner being the bhaisur has
absolutely no concern with the family of the complainant and her
husband and this petitioner is living separately. It has further been
pointed out that admittedly the marriage of the complainant was
solemnized in the year 1987 and this present complaint petition was
filed in the year 1997 and that too on the demand of dowry, which
does not appear to be feasible.
8. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
9. Having taken into consideration aforesaid forceful submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioner under the facts and circumstances
of this case, this petitioner Jagdish Thakur is directed to be enlarged
on provisional bail till 1st May 2023, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Barhi (Padma
O.P.) P.S. Case No.131 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No.1771 of 1997,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly the I.A. No. 11558 of 2022 also gets disposed of.
11. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to take steps for
issuance of fresh notice on the present and correct address of O.P.
No.2 through registered post with A/D as well as through ordinary
process, for which, requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.
12. Learned APP is also directed to take steps for issuance of notice
through the concerned police station to the complainant to ascertain
the whereabouts and existence and to serve the notice and submit a
report to that effect.
13. Let this case be posted on 1st May 2023.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
