[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Singh @ Binay Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr. Revision No. 946 of 2025
----
Vinay Kumar Singh @ Binay Kumar Sinha .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Shilpi Kumari ...... ..... .... Opp. Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate
For the O.P.no.2 :- Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate
----
7/15.12.2025 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been sentenced by the judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Koderma in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case
No.133 of 2017, G.R. No.437 of 2017, whereby the petitioner has been
convicted under section 498A IPC and sentenced to two years of SI for offence
under section 498A IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under section 498A
IPC and in default of payment of fine SI for three months. He further submits
that the petitioner has challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge,
Koderma in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024 whereby learned Additional Sessions
Judge has upheld the order dated 12.02.2025 and he has been pleased to
dismiss the said order.
2. He further submits that I.A. No.14291 of 2025 has been filed for release
of the petitioner on bail. He next submits that the petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail during trial. He next submits that the petitonier has
surrendered before the learned court on 18.8.2025 and remained in custody for
about 3 months and 27 days. He then submits that in case of Rajesh
Chhadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 OnLine SC 1094 it
has been held that unless the demand of dowry under section 498A of the IPC
followed by certain act is there, section 498A IPC will not sustain. He then
submits that section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act coupled with another
allegation is not approved, section 498A IPC will not survive. He also submits
that petitioner and informant both have solemnized second marriage. He then
submits that this revision petition is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood
of this criminal revision petition of being taken recently and in view of that the
petitioner may kindly be allowed bail during pendency of this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the
O.P.no.2 jointly oppose the prayer for bail and submit that there are concurrent
finding of two learned courts and in view of that prayer for bail may kindly be
rejected.
4. Considering that the petitioners have remained in custody for about
3 months and the sentence is of two years and this criminal revision petition is
of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of this criminal revision being taken
up recently and light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagwan Ram Shinde v. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421
and further in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Satender Kumar
Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51 wherein at paragraph no.57 it has been held that:
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.
5. In view of above, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner, above named, and accordingly, the instant I.A. filed for grant of bail,
is allowed, and hence, the petitioner above named is hereby directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of this Criminal Revision petition, on
furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) only each with
two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Koderma, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.133 of
2017, G.R. No.437 of 2017 with further condition that one of the bailors must
be a close relative of the petitioners.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 15th Dec., 2025
SI/
