[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Raju Kumar Barnwal 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.795 of 2025
Raju Kumar Barnwal, aged about 45 years, son of Suresh Lal Barnwal,
resident of 3/62, Gandhi Nagar, P.O. - Hinoo, P.S.- Doranda, District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vivek Kumar Rai, Advocate
------
9/15.12.2025 Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
case is arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and
the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Ranchi in complaint case No.3105 of 2021, T.R. No.2167 of
2024 registered under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to
undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation money of
Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of compensation,
further directed to undergo S.I. for two months. She next submits that
the said judgment was challenged before learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.125 of 2024 and by
Judgment dated 6th September 2024, the learned Judicial
Commissioner has been pleased to reject the appeal.
3. She next submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on the condition that the
petitioner will pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant. She
also submits that the petitioner was not able to arrange the said money,
however, he has already paid a sum of Rs.1,20,0000/- and for
completing the 20% of the cheque amount, i.e. Rs.1,88,000/- required
to be paid by the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner has
filed I.A. No.9012 of 2025 for bail to the petitioner. She submits that
the petitioner is the sole earning member and she has got instruction,
if the petitioner will release on bail, by the end of January 2026,
Rs.1,88,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner. She also submits that she
has got instruction that the petitioner however is ready to compromise
the matter and the rest of the amount, he will return to the complainant
in proportionate EMIs. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
further submits that as the petitioner was not be able to pay the total
20% of the cheque amount to the complainant and paid only
Rs.1,20,000/- and in that view of the matter, the petitioner has
surrendered before the learned Court on 28.06.2025 and he is in
custody since then and has remained in custody for about six months
and in view of that he has remained in custody for more than half of
the sentence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter
is arising out of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposed
the prayer and submits that 20% of the cheque amount as ordered by
the learned Judicial Commissioner has not been paid to the
complainant. He also submits that the intention of the petitioner is not
clear and there is likelihood that the petitioner will not pay, as earlier
also, he has not paid. In view of that, he submits that the petitioner
may kindly not be released on bail.
6. Considering that 20% of the cheque amount in light of the order
of the learned Judicial Commissioner is to be paid and Rs.1,20,000/-
has already been paid. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been able to pay
complete 20% of the cheque amount and the remaining amount, i.e.
Rs.1,88,000/- was not arranged and in that view of the matter, the
petitioner has surrendered on 28.06.2008 and he is in custody since
then. It has further been pointed out that the said Rs.1,88,000/- will be
paid by the petitioner by the end of January 2026 and the petitioner is
further ready to pay the other compensation amount in EMIs and for
that the petitioner and complainant can sit together for compounding
of matter in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. In view of the above and in the attending facts and
circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such,
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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, in connection with complaint
case No.3105 of 2021, T.R. No.2167 of 2024.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.9012 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
cheque amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is deposited before learned Judicial
Commissioner on 16.07.2024 and she has got instruction that the
petitioner will revalidate the said cheque within one week from the
date of release and complainant may obtain the revalidated cheque of
Rs.1,20,000/- from the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner.
10. Call for the scanned copy of the trial court record.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
15.12.2025
R.Kumar
