[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Prasad Das vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Parties on 16 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1080 of 2025
Mahendra Prasad Das, aged about 45 years, son of Late Rameshwar
Prasad Das, resident of Sector 12 Qr. No.1225, P.O. & P.S. Sector 12,
District - Bokaro ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
------
3/16.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been convicted by judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with G.R. Case No. 606 of 2013
arising out of Chas P.S. Case No. 125 of 2013 u/s 409, 420, 120B of
the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three years and fine of
Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo S.I. for six
months u/s 409 of I.P.C., further sentence to undergo S.I. for three
years, and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine shall
undergo S.I. for six months u/s 420 of I.P.C. and further sentence to
undergo S.I. for 01 years u/s 120B of I.P.C. and all the sentences are
ordered to run concurrently. He next submits, against the said
judgment, the petitioner has preferred the appeal being Cr. Appeal
No.23 of 2023 and the said appeal has also been dismissed by order
dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody after surrendering on 06.11.2025 to till date.
He further submits that the petitioner has already remained in custody
for about 11 months. He next submits that the petitioner has already
deposited Rupees four lakh four thousand fifty before the competent
authority in view of the regular bail order of this Court. He submits
that the matter is still pending and there is no likelihood to take up the
matter recently as the criminal revision is of year 2025 and as such,
the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that there are concurrent findings of the two courts and in
view of that petitioner may not be granted bail.
5. Considering that the maximum sentence is of three years and
this revision is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of taking up
the matter recently and the petitioner has already remained in custody
for about 11 months. Further the defalcated amount of Rupees four
lakh four thousand and fifty has already been deposited before the
competent authority and further considering the case of Bhagwan
Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421
and the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51 where 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."
6. In the light of the above, I am inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
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, Bokaro,
in connection with G.R. Case No. 606 of 2013 arising out of Chas P.S.
Case No. 125.
8. Call for the scanned copy of the trial court record.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
16.12.2025
R.Kumar
