[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Naresh Kumar Yadav 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.808 of 2025
1. Naresh Kumar Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Dhaneshwar
Yadav
2. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, aged about 50 years, son of late Raghunath
Yadav
Both residents of village & P.O. Gumgi, P.S. - Tisri, District - Giridih
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner s : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahini, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, APP
------
2/15.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the Judgment dated
18.07.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in
G.R. No. 228 of 2016, arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No.33 of
2016 (T.R. No.1674 of 2024), whereby the petitioners have been
convicted under Sections 511 and 420 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to
undergo S.I. for six months. He next submits that the said judgment
was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge,
Koderma in Cr. Appeal No.30 of 2024 and the learned Sessions Judge
by Judgment dated 21.12.2024 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
I.A. No.10271 of 2025 has been filed for regular bail. He next submits
that although the case has been registered under Sections 420 and 468
of IPC, however the learned court has acquitted the petitioners under
Section 468 of IPC and only convicted under Section 511 and 420 of
IPC for two years and fine. He next submits that the cheating was not
done, however only attempt was made to cheat, in view of that the
learned court has sentenced the petitioner for two years under Section
511 and 420 of the IPC. By inviting the attention of the Court to the
judgment of the learned trial court, he submits that the petitioner has
remained in custody for three months and four days and they have
surrendered before the learned court on 28.07.2025 and since then,
they are in custody. He then submits that they have remained in
custody for about seven months and 17 days. He next submits that this
revision is of the year 2025 and there is likelihood of not taking up the
Cr. revision recently.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the
allegation of attempt of cheating is there.
5. Considering that the petitioners have been sentence under
Section 511 and 420 of IPC for attempt of cheating and they have
been acquitted under Section 468 of IPC and they have remained in
custody for 07 months and 17 days, whereas the sentence has been
passed for two years. This revision is of the year 2025 and there is no
likelihood of taking up this revision recently.
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. In the attending facts and circumstances, the petitioners named
above are directed to be released on regular bail, 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Koderma P.S. Case
no.33 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.228 of 2016.
8. I.A. No.10271 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
9. Call for the scanned copy of the trial court record.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
15.12.2025
R.Kumar
