[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Khemlal Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.883 of 2025
Khemlal Sao, aged about 35 years, S/o Chetlal Sao, resident of village
Sinpur, P.O. Chatra, Police Station Sadar, District- Chatra
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
------
6/15.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Judgment dated
11.01.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in
G.R. No.541 of 2011, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo R.I for two years and six months and fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days under section 498A of IPC. He next submits
that the said judgment was challenged before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in criminal appeal No.03 of 2018 and by
the Judgment dated 08.05.2025, the learned appellate court has been
pleased to modify the sentence for one year and six months and rest of
the judgment of the learned trial court has been kept intact.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
I.A. No.12271 of 2025 has been filed for regular bail He submits that
the petitioner has surrendered before the learned court on 27.08.2025
and has remained in custody about 3 and ½ months. He next submits
that even the father of the petitioner has executed the sale deed in
favour of the informant, which was marked as Annexure-A, in spite of
that, false case has been lodged by the informant against this petitioner
and the petitioner happened to be husband. He next submits that there
is no likelihood of taking up this criminal revision recently as the
criminal revision is of year 2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there are
concurrent findings of the two courts, however, the learned appellate
court has modified the sentence from 2 years and six months to 1 year
and six months.
5. In view of the above and considering the nature of the case and
it has been pointed out by way of Annexure-A, that the sale deed has
been executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the
informant, in spite of that she has lodged the case. The petitioner has
remained in custody for about three and half months and the learned
appellate court has modified the period of sentence to one year and six
months. This revision is not likelihood to be taken up in recently as
the criminal revision is of the year 2025.
6. In the case of "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 in para 57 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"57. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main
appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred
under Section 436-A of the Code among other factors
ought to be considered for a favourable release on
bail."
7. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be
released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in
connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.02 of 2011, corresponding to G.R.
No.541 of 2011.
8. I.A. I.A. No.12271 of 2025 allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
15.12.2025
R.Kumar
