Jharkhand High Court
Moti Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1186 of 2022
....
Moti Lal ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bishwanath Rajwar ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
.....
I.A. No. 10315 of 2022
07/16.01.2023 From the report submitted by Sri Deepak Kumar Sahu,
Secretary, Sub-Divisional Legal Services Committee, Bermo at
Tenughtat vide Letter No. 869 of 2022 dated 20.12.022, it appears that
mediation between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2-
Bishwanath Rajwar is successful and the petitioner is ready to pay
Rs. 8,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2-Bishwanath Rajwar within a
period of six months after being released from jail.
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 1186 of 2022 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2019 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro whereby learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 124
of 2019 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 28.05.2019 passed by Sri Sanjit Kumar Chandra, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 541
of 2018 corresponding to T. R. No. 310 of 2019 by which the petitioner
has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2)
years and to pay total Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant by way of
compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P. C.
3. I.A. No. 10315 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the
Criminal Revision Application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
judgments and orders passed by the learned Court below are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the matter has been
compromised between the parties before the Secretary, Sub-Divisional
Legal Services Committee, Bermo at Tenughtat. It is submitted that the
petitioner is a CCL employee and undertakes to pay the entire amount
i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- after being released from jail within six months. It is
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 16.09.2022 and as
such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 has
admitted the factum of compromise and has submitted that necessary
orders may be passed.
8. Considering the compromise between the petitioner and the
complainant -opposite party no. 2, during pendency of this Criminal
Revision Application, the petitioner namely Moti Lal is directed to be
released on provisional bail till 17.04.2023, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sanjit Kumar Chandra, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat or his Successor Court in
Complaint Case No. 541 of 2018 corresponding to T. R. No. 310 of
2019 subject to the condition that one of bailers should be relative of
the petitioner.
Criminal Revision No. 1186 of 2022
9. Put up this case on 14.03.2023.
However, it will desirable that the petitioner may pay certain
amount to the opposite party no. 2 in the meantime.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
