Jharkhand High Court
Ganga Prasad Gupta @ Ganga Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2023
1 Cr. Revision No.1205 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1205 of 2022
Ganga Prasad Gupta @ Ganga Sao .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
With
Cr. Revision No.1157 of 2022
With
Cr. Revision No.1165 of 2022
With
Cr. Revision No.1166 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
-----
Cr. Revision No.1205 of 2022
5/8.02.2023 Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the I.A. No.1145 of 2023 has been filed for
ignoring the defect No.7, which is related to the filing of certified copy of
the order dated 9.10.2019 with fee, as pointed out by the stamp reporter.
It has been submitted that the lower court record has been received and
therefore this defect may be ignored for the present.
Accordingly the defect, as pointed out by the office, is ignored and
the I.A. No.1145 of 2023 stands disposed of.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that the I.A. No. 973 of 2023 has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the petitioner Ganga Prasad Gupta @ Ganga Sao on bail. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the instant Revision
Application has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned lower
appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2019, whereby and
whereunder, the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
09.10.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2023 of 2013, arising out of Katras P.S. Case No. 120
of 2013, corresponding to T.R. No. 990 of 2019, whereby the revisionist
was found guilty for committing offence under Sections 353, 323 and 332
all read with Sections 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve months
with a fine of Rs.1000/- for committing offence under Section 323 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for
twelve months with a fine of Rs.2000/- for committing offence under
Section 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous
imprisonment of eighteen months with a fine of Rs.3000/- for
committing offence under Section 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for twelve months with a fine of
Rs.1000/- for committing offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal
Code and; rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months with a fine of
Rs.1000/- for committing offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal
Code and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for three months with respect to each offence and
all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It has further been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
in custody from 27.01.2023 and during trial, petitioner was in custody
from 06.07.2013 to 23.09.2013 therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on
bail. It has also been pointed out that the witnesses examined on behalf
of the accused i.e. DW2, DW4, DW5, DW8, DW33 and DW24 has not
been appreciated in the right perspective. It has further been pointed out
that the learned Courts below including the trial Court and the learned
lower appellate Court did not apply their judicial minds and committed
gross error in appreciation of the fact that for want of the evidence of
memo of arrest of one Rajesh Gupta, who was said to have been arrested
in a case and this petitioner along with co-accused persons wanted to
rescue unlawfully from the police custody and, therefore, the present
case has been instituted against him and co-accused persons but it has
not been substantiated inasmuch as the memo of arrest of Rajesh Gupta
has not been prepared as stated by the Investigating Officer in his
deposition. It has further been pointed out by the learned defense
counsel that no overt act has been attributed against this petitioner and it
was alleged that he was simply standing at the time of occurrence and,
therefore, it is urged that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and
submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail
because of the criminal antecedent and further he has been convicted in
the serious offence, inter alia, under Section 225, 332 and 353 of the Indian
Penal Code and all the witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions
advanced on behalf of both the parties, perused the records of the case.
In the backdrop of the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on
record, this Court finds it just and reasonable to enlarge the petitioner on
bail and hence the petitioner Ganga Prasad Gupta @ Ganga Sao is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousands only) with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2013,
corresponding to G.R. No. 2023 of 2023 and T.R. No. 990 of 2019, subject
to payment of fine as awarded by the learned Court below in different
counts/ sections without being prejudiced to his right of defence.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 973 of 2023 is disposed of.
This Criminal Revision Application is admitted.
Original lower court has already been received. Let this case be
posted along with Cr. Revision No.1157 of 2022, Cr. Revision No.1165 of
2022 and Cr. Revision No.1166 of 2022.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
