Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.1635 of 2016
....
Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Saryu Singh, Resident of
Village-Shanti Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Khelari, District-Ranchi
......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Vishwanath Moon, Advocate
......
Order No.11/04.04.2025
I.A. No.1996 of 2025
This Criminal Revision Application No.1635 of 2016 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated
26.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2012 by
Sri Diwakar Pandey, then learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi by which the appeal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of
conviction dated 04.07.2012 passed by Sri S.N. Sikdar, then
Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ranchi in connection with Khalari
P.S. Case No.02 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 23 of
2006, T.R. No.1126 of 2012, by which the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for Three (03) months for the offence
committed under Section 323 of IPC and S.I. for one and half year
for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and to pay the
compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Although, the learned Appellate
Court had affirmed the conviction under Section 323 and 326 of
IPC, but, the learned Appellate Court had reduced the
compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from Rs.25,000/- under
Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.
2. I.A. No.1996 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail during the pendency of this Criminal
Revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
as well as learned counsel for the Informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by learned
Courts below are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
submitted that it is not a case of sudden provocation. It is
submitted that the injury on the informant-injured is not in the vital
part of the body. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has
not been examined in this case and several witnesses have been
declared hostile. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody
since 01.02.2025 hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer
for bail.
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also opposed the
prayer for bail in this case and submitted that this is a case of direct
assault upon the informant and due to which his left little finger
was cut and the informant had sustained grievous injury which is
proved by the Doctor i.e. CW-1. It is submitted that the petitioner
has surrendered before the Learned Court below after much delay.
It is submitted that although the Investigating Officer has not been
examined and however, the Informant has fully proved his case
and hence the prayer of bail may be rejected.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and going
through the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner is
alleged to have assaulted the Informant by Belcha by which he
sustained cut injury in the little finger of his left hand.
8. It also appears that the blood stained cloths has not been
handed over to the Police by the Informant.
9. It also appears that the Investigating Officer has not been
examined. It also appears that some witnesses have been alleged
that PW-3 and PW-4 has not supported the prosecution case.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely Santosh Kumar
Singh is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of, Sri Soumendra Nath Sikdar,
J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi or his Successor Court in connection with
G.R. Case No.23 of 2006 arising out of Khalari P.S. Case No.02 of
2006 subject to the condition that one bailor must be the own
relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall pay Rs.25,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) at the time furnishing the bail bonds to
the Informant by way of compensation under Section 357-A of
Cr.P.C. for the present and the petitioner is directed to pay
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) in the name of Informant
by way of Demand Draft at the time of furnishing the bail bonds.
11. Thus, I.A. No.1996 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. The learned Court below is directed is disburse the said
Demand Draft of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) to the
O.P. No.2- informant on filing as of such an application.
13. Admit.
14. Lower Court Records has already been received.
15. Put up this case for hearing in the month January 2026.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court
below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
