Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 2022
------
1. Anil Kumar Modi
2. Sabitri Devi ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Usha Devi
w/o Late Ratanlal Agarwal ... ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, S.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
-------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 16th June, 2023
I.A. No. 3138 of 2023
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State as also learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite party No. 2, Usha Devi, who has been substituted after the
death of the original opposite party No. 2, Ratanlal Agarwal being his wife.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that
one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3138 of 2023 has been filed on behalf
of the petitioners with a prayer to enlarge petitioner No. 1 on bail during the
pendency of this criminal revision which has been preferred against the judgment
dated 03.12.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2017 along with Criminal
Appeal No. 42 of 2017 as both the appeals had been preferred against the common
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2022 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih, whereby and where under
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2017 was dismissed with observation by upholding the
judgement of conviction and order of sentence of convict Anil Kumar Modi while
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2017 was partly allowed with modification in sentence
where under convict Sabitri Devi was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for
commission of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in order to give
it to the complainant / opposite party No. 2 without being prejudiced to his civil
right and in default of payment of fine she would undergo simple imprisonment for
six months.
Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 2022
3. Both the above appeals had been filed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2007, T.R. Case No.
460 of 2017, whereby and where under both the accused / petitioners were
convicted under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and convict Anil Kumar
Modi was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code whereas convict Sabitri Devi vide was released on
due admonition by allowing the benefit of the Probation of Offender Act.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is monetary transaction
between the parties for the sale and purchase of the land under which it is alleged
that after taking the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant-
opposite party No. 2, the petitioners did not execute the sale deed nor returned the
money.
5. It has further been pointed out that the lower Appellate Court has confirmed
the conviction of the petitioners and modified the order of sentence under which
the petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years
for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and
petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment
of fine she was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the
said fine amount was directed by the leanred Court below to give it to the
complainant-opposite party No. 2 without being prejudiced to his right of defence.
6. Further the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner No. 2 is ready to deposit the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in order to
give it to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 in the light of the modified order of
sentence as awarded by the lower Appellate Court and in this light it is submitted
that let the petitioner No.1, be enlarged on bail after the deposit of the said amount
by the petitioner No. 2, Sabitri Devi in favour of the complainant opposite party
No. 2, as Sabitri Devi, in view of the fact that the petitioner No. 2 is the mother of
petitioner No. 1 who is in jail since 16.03.2023.
7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2,
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that both
Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 2022
the petitioners have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406
of the Indian Penal Code and petitioner No. 1 was convicted for two years whereas
petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to fine for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code in order to give it to the complainant-opposite party
No. 2 as compensation without being prejudice to his right of defence and
therefore, petitioner No. 1, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail because a huge
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- have been misappropriated by him fraudulently and
dishonestly in the year 2007.
8. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submission advanced on
behalf of the parties and in the light of the persuasive submission advanced on
behalf of the petitioner No. 1, it is found just and fair to enlarge petitioner No. 1,
during the pendency of this criminal revision.
9. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 is directed to be enlarged on bail upon
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2007 T.R. Case No. 460 of 2017,
subject to the condition that petitioner No. 2, Sabitri Devi, who is the mother of
petitioner No. 1, deposits the entire fine amount as awarded by the learned Court
below i.e. a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in order to give it to the
complainant-opposite party No. 2, Usha Devi (substituted in place of the death of
her husband Ratanlal Agarwal) without being prejudice to his right of their
defence.
10. The learned Court below is directed to issue notice to opposite party No. 2,
Usha Devi, (wife of the deceased Ratanlal Agarwal) after deposit of the said fine
amount and after her appearance and proper identification the said amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) will be disbursed to her by way of
compensation without being prejudice to the right of defence of the petitioners.
11. The petitioner No.1 is directed to furnish the money receipt of the deposit of the
fine amount within four weeks.
12. Accordingly, the pending Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3138 of
2023, gets disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 2022
Cr. Revision No. 1476 of 2022
13. This Criminal Revision is admitted for hearing.
14. Let the original Lower Court Records be called for put up this case under the
heading "for hearing" in seriatim in usual course.
D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)
