[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Karamjit Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 998 of 2025
1. Karamjit Oraon
2. Ajit Tirkey
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, .P.P.
------
06/ 15.12.2025 I.A. No. 7289 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the
delay of 165 days in filing the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have been acknowledged belatedly about the dismissal
of the criminal appeal before the learned first appellate court, in view of
that the aforementioned delay has occurred. He submits that the said
delay may kindly be condoned.
2. Learned P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any
serious objection, if the aforementioned delay is condoned.
3. In view of the above submissions and for the reasons
assigned in the I.A., the delay of 165 days in filing the criminal revision
is, hereby, condoned.
4. The aforesaid I.A. is allowed and disposed of.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, by the
judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in connection with Kuru P.S. Case
No. 83 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 525 of 2010 [T.R. No. 03 of
2018] has been pleased to hold guilty and the petitioners have been
sentenced to undergo one year R.I and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, petitioners shall further undergo S.I. for one month
U/s 403 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are also convicted
U/s 408 of Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence for the offence
has been awarded against them. Petitioners are further sentenced to
undergo three years R.I and also pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in
default S.I for two months U/S 409 I.P.C, however, it is also directed
that the period already undergone by the convicts shall be set off as per
section 428 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
further submits that the said judgment of learned trial court has been
challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga,
in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2018, whereby the learned first appellate
court by the judgment dated 26.09.2024, has been pleased to acquit
both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 403 and 408 of the
Indian Penal Code and conviction of the petitioners has been affirmed
under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
for grant of regular bail / suspension of sentence, during the pendency
of this revision petition, I.A. No. 7288 of 2025 has been filed. He
submits that the petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for about 18
months and petitioner No. 2 has also remained in custody for about 23
months and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-15 of the
revision petition. He next submits that there is no likelihood of taking
this revision petition recently, as this petition is of the year 2025 only
and in view of that these petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail,
during the pendency of this petition.
7. Learned P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer
and submits that there are concurrent findings of two of the learned
courts and in view of that the prayer for bail of the petitioner may
kindly be rejected.
8. It appears that petitioner No. 1 has remained in custody for
about 18 months and petitioner No. 2 has also remained in custody for
about 23 months and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-15
of the revision petition and further there is no likelihood of taking this
revision petition recently, as this petition is of the year 2025 only.
9. Reference may be made to the case of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai Versus State of
Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, in para-57, has
held as follows:-
"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."
10. In view of the above and in the attending facts and
circumstance of the case, the petitioners, named above, is directed to be
released on regular bail, during the pendency of this petition, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in connection
with Kuru P.S. Case No. 83 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 525 of
2010 [T.R. No. 03 of 2018].
11. The aforementioned I.A. is allowed and disposed of.
12. Call for the Trial Court Records.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-15.12.2025
Amitesh/-
