Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 354 of 2021
....
Suresh Yadav ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunita Devi ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
For the O. P. No. 2: None.
.....
I.A. No. 1816 of 2023
09/18.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State. However, it appears from the office note that
notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2. However,
opposite party no. 2 has not appeared today.
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 354 of 2021 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
19.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2019 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma has dismissed the appeal
and modified the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
01.05.2019 and uphold the conviction of petitioner under Section
498-A of Indian Penal Code and reduced the sentence of the
petitioner to undergo R .I for a period of one (1) year instead of
two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of
fine, the petitioner is further sentenced to undergo S.I for six (6)
months, although vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 01.05.2019 passed by Mohammad Umar, Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with
Complaint Case No. 371 of 2011 corresponding to T. R. No. 88 of
2019 the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for
the offences Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and in default of
payment of fine, the petitioner is further sentenced to undergo S.I
for six (6) months.
3. I.A. No. 1816 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are
not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that there is
contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. It is submitted that
the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2023 and as such, he may
be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
bail and has submitted that the learned Court below has taken
lenient view by reducing the sentence of the petitioner. It is
submitted that C.W.-2 Sunita Devi i.e. the complainant, C.W.-1,
Bishundeo Yadav, C.W.-3, Ajay Kumar and C.W.-4, Ramesh
Pandit have fully supported the case of the complainant-wife and
as such, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and
considered the submission of both the sides.
7. It appears that the petitioner is the husband. It also appears
that the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2023.
8. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the
petitioner namely Suresh Yadav is directed to be released on
provisional bail for a period of five months, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of Mohammad Umar, Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma or his Successor Court in
connection with Complaint Case No. 371 of 2011 corresponding to
T. R. No. 88 of 2019 subject to the condition that one of the bailors
should be relative of the petitioner.
9. Thus, I.A. No. 1816 of 2023 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No. 354 of 2021
10. Lower Court Records has already been received.
11. Put up this case on 11.07.2023 awaiting the appearance of
the opposite party no. 2.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
