Jharkhand High Court
Dhullu Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1157 of 2022
------
Dhullu Mahato ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate;
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
--------
Order No. 08: Dated: 24 January, 2023
th
IA No. 173 of 2023
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the instant Interlocutory Application
bearing IA No. 173 of 2023 has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
petitioner 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 sentence dated 24.08.2022 passed by the
learned lower appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 188 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 GR No. 2023 of 2013, arising out of
Katras PS Case No. 120 of 2013, corresponding to TR 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 was in custody from 09.07.2013 to
15.06.2014 and further from 09.01.2023 as on date and, as such, it is
submitted that the petitioner has already served 2/3rd of total period of
sentence as awarded by the learned courts below and, therefore, he
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
To buttress his argument, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr." reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
Paragraph No. 46 of the judgment reads as under:
"46. Section 436A of the Code has been inserted by Act 25 of
2005. This provision has got a laudable object behind it,
particularly from the point of view of granting bail. This
provision draws the maximum period for which an undertrial
prisoner can be detained. This period has to be reckoned with the
custody of the accused during the investigation, injury and trial.
We have already explained that the word 'trial' will have to be
given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or
admission is pending. Thus, in a case where an appeal is pending
for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of
incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and so also for
the revision."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has been suffering from several ailments and the
photocopy of medical prescriptions have also been attached along
with the said interlocutory application.
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 mind and committed gross error in appreciation of
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
wanted to rescue unlawfully from the police custody and, therefore,
the present case has been instituted against this petitioner 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 and, therefore, it is urged that
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
It has also been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner 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.
On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Government
Advocate-III appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners 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 persuasive submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the rulings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds just and fair to give the
privilege of granting bail to the petitioner and, accordingly, the
petitioner, namely, Dhullu Mahato 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 PS Case No. 120 of 2013, corresponding to
GR No. 2023 of 2023 and TR 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, IA No. 173 of 2023 is disposed of.
IA No. 10799 of 2022
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the pending Interlocutory
Application bearing IA No. 10799 of 2022.
Accordingly, IA No. 10799 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Cr. Revision No. 1157 of 2022
This Criminal Revision Application is admitted.
Let original Lower Court Records be called for.
Let it be posted under the heading "For Hearing" in its
seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Madhav/-
