Kaishar Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10534 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kaishar Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Revision No. 323 of 2024
                               ....

Kaishar Ansari, aged about 40 years, Son of Karim Ansari, resident of Village-Serenghatu, P.O.-Juriya, P.S.-Senha, District-Lohardaga (Jharkhand) at present Resident of Bamandiha, Birsa Chowk, Kutmu, Under ropeway Net, P.O.-Nigni, P.S. & District-Lohardaga (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kalindar Sahu, aged about 50 years, Son of Jagdish Sahu, Resident of Village-Bhandra, P.O. & P.S. Bhandra, District-

    Lohardaga (Jharkhand)                                         .... Opp. Parties
                               ....
 CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

For the Petitioners           : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Adv.
For the State                 : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2             : Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv.
                              ....
08/19.11.2024

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant criminal revision petition.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.88/2023 by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga affirming the judgment dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.538 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

3. It appears that there was commercial transaction between the parties and cheque has been supplied in lieu of purchase of bricks kiln but that cheque has been dishonoured.

4. From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted for one year in three cases and the sentence in the present case has started w.e.f. 17.06.2024. Although the petitioner is in custody since 31.08.2023. It further appears that it is a transaction between the same party.

5. Considering the above facts, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.538 of 2018, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain present before the Court as and when the case is taken up for hearing, failing which his bail bond shall be cancelled.

I.A. No.3491 of 2024 stands disposed of.

1. Admit.

2. No notice is required to be issued as all the parties have already appeared.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Shahid/ uploaded