Jharkhand High Court
Upendra Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 791 of 2020
....
Upendra Ram ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sheela Devi ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. -2, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A. P. P.
......
I.A. No. 5220 of 2023
04/19.06.2023 It appears from the office note dated 17.06.2023 that
notice has been received by the brother of the opposite party no. 2,
however, opposite party no. 2 has not appeared as yet.
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 791 of 2020 has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2019
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2018 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge- III, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby
learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Palamau at Daltonganj has
dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2018 and affirmed the
judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2018
passed by Sri Rohit Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau
at Daltonganj in connection with Complaint Case No. 813-A of
2004 corresponding to T. R. No. 1699 of 2018 whereby the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I.
for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to
undergo S.I. for a period of three (3) months.
3. I.A. No. 5220 of 2023 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.
5. It is submitted that judgments and order passed by the
learned Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is
submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the
contradicting statement in the evidence of the witnesses of the
complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner is the husband of
the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner
was in custody from 22.08.2013 to 26.02.2014 and thereafter the
petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2022 i.e. for around 14 months
and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that the petitioner is the husband and there is
allegation of cruelty with the opposite party no. 2 due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry.
7. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It transpires that the petitioner is husband. It also
transpires that earlier the petitioner was in custody from
22.08.2013 to 26.02.2014 and thereafter the petitioner is in
custody since 15.10.2022 i.e. for around 14 months.
9. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and
considering on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the
petitioner namely Upendra Ram is directed to be released on
provisional bail for a period of six months from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Rohit
Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj or
his Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 813-A
of 2004 corresponding to T. R. No. 1699 of 2018.
10. I.A. No. 5220 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 791 of 2020
11. Issue fresh notice to the opposite party no. 2 under
registered cover with A/D and ordinary process and for which
requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today.
12. Put up this case after eight weeks.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
