Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Mahanti @ Rajesh Mahanti vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 7643 of 2024
---------
Rajesh Kumar Mahanti @ Rajesh Mahanti, aged about
45 years, son of Chitrasen Mahanti, resident of
Sentola, PO-Chaibasa, PS-Sadar, Chaibasa, District-
West Singhbhum
..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Nitin Parmar ..... Opp. Parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : None
---------
06/13.02.2025 It appears from the Office note that the
Notice has been received by the wife of the O.P. No.2,
which was issued to the O.P. No.2 in the light of order
dated 11.09.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
(Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as His Lordship then was)
of this Court, however, when the case was called out
none appeared for the O.P. No.2.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
07.12.2023, passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla,
learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2023, by
which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the
appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 21.07.2023 passed by Sri Rishi
Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at
Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.390 of 2019 (T.R.No.
357 of 2023), by which the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for One (01) year and
Six (06) months and to pay a fine amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- to the Complainant by way of
compensation.
3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed
for grant of bail.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned judgments and sentence
passed by the learned Courts below are illegal,
arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is
submitted that the petitioner had not taken any loan
of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs) from the
Complainant, rather the Complainant-O.P. No.2 used
to run a business of Chit Fund and he used to lure the
customers including this petitioner and had obtained
blank cheque in good faith from the petitioner. It is
submitted that the O.P. No.2 was a L.I.C. Agent and
the license of the O.P. No.2 had been terminated,
which is evident from the evidence of D.W.3, namely
Rajan Prasad and the conduct of the O.P. No. 2 was
not proper. It is submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 22.07.2024 and hence, the petitioner
may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposed
the prayer for bail. It is submitted that this is a case of
non-payment of a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lacs). It is submitted that the Complainant-O.P. No.2
has supported the case against the petitioner and
hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the
sides and after going through the Lower Court
Records, it appears that Complainant-O.P. No. 2 was a
L.I.C. Agent, who is alleged to have given loan of
Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioner.
7. It appears that the petitioner has examined
himself as D.W.1 and also got examined two other
witnesses, i.e. D.W.2, namely Rajan Prasad, who is the
Administrative Officer of L.I.C., Chaibasa and D.W.3,
namely Karan Singh Munda, Senior Manager, Central
Bank of India, Chaibasa. D.W.2 has stated that the
license of the O.P. No.2 was terminated by the L.I.C
8. It appears that the petitioner is in custody
since 22.07.2024, i.e. around Seven (07) months.
9. Under the circumstances, the
Petitioner, namely Rajesh Kumar Mahanti @ Rajesh
Mahanti, is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, at Chaibasa /or his Successor Court, in
connection with Complaint Case No.390 of 2019 (T.R.
No.357 of 2023), subject to the condition that one of
the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner.
10. Thus, I.A. No. 7643 of 2024 is allowed
and stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2024
11. Admit.
12. Issue fresh Notice to the O.P.No.2 by both
the process, i.e. Registered with A/D and Ordinary, for
which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.
13. Put up this case for 'Hearing' in the year
2026 as per seriatim.
14. L.C.R. has already been received.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
