Jharkhand High Court
Anil Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 February, 2023
1 Cr. Revision No.393 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.393 of 2022
Anil Giri ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, APP
-----
4/10.02.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned
judgement dated 28.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Jamtara, in Cr. Appeal No.42 of 2019, whereby and whereunder,
learned Appellant Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.06.2019 passed by Ld. SDJM, Jamtara in connection with G.R. Case
No.291 of 2012, corresponding to Mihijam P.S. Case No.117 of 2012,
being T.R. No.39 of 2019, whereby and where under the learned court
below convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo two years imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner is
directed to serve additional period of imprisonment for two months.
He is further convicted under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, the petitioner is directed to serve
additional period of imprisonment for three months. It was directed
that the period undergone during pendency of trial shall be set off
while computing the period of imprisonment and all the sentenced
shall run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that one IA No. 4687 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
with prayer to enlarge him on bail by suspending the execution of
order of sentence dated 11.06.2019. It has been pointed out that the
learned Appellate Court has committed gross error in dismissing the
appeal preferred by the appellant ex-parte, which is not tenable in the
eyes of law and even if the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant
is not appearing on behalf of the appellant, the lower appellant court
was under obligation to appoint a legal aid counsel to hear on behalf
of the appellant and therefore the impugned judgement dated
28.02.2022 passed by lower Appellate Court is bad in law and fit to be
set aside. Further it has been pointed out that the learned trial court
has also not appreciated the latches on the part of the prosecution that
the informant in this case has not been examined and this petitioner
has been debarred from the valuable rights of cross examining the I.O.
in order to bring the contradictions / inconsistencies with respect to
the witnesses examined during the course of the investigation by the
I.O. and thus a serious prejudice has been caused to the case of the
defence of the petitioner. It has further been pointed out that due to
enmity, the present petitioner has been implicated in this case in view
of the fact that the learned court below has failed to appreciate that
prior to present case, the petitioner had filed one complaint case No.
13 of 2022 against the informant of the present case, which is nothing
but counter blast of the earlier case instituted by the petitioner. Further
it has further been pointed out that after passing the impugned
judgement by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner has
surrendered on 02/05/2022 and since then he is languishing in jail
and therefore, it is urged that let the petitioner be enlarged on bail
during pending of this Criminal Revision Application.
4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the state
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the state.
5. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case
including the scanned copy of the lower court record.
6. In the light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is found just
and fair to give the privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly
the petitioner Anil Giri is directed to enlarge on bail 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 Ld.
SDJM, Jamtara, in connection with G.R. Case No.291 of 2012,
corresponding to Mihijam P.S. Case No.117 of 2012, being T.R. No.39
of 2019 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that the entire fine amount
as awarded by the learned court below in both the counts shall be
deposited by the petitioner without being prejudice to the right of the
defence.
7. Accordingly the I.A. No.4687 of 2022 gets disposed of.
8. This criminal revision application is admitted for hearing.
9. Let the original lower court record be called for and let this case
be listed under the heading for hearing in seriatim after receipt of the
original lower court record.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
