Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 92 of 2025
---------
Manoj Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Geeta Devi ..... Opp. Parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
---------
th
08/24 February, 2025
I.A. No. 92 of 2025
1. This Criminal Revision Application has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 05.03.2024, passed by Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur, in
Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022 dismissing the appeal by
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 04.08.2022, passed by Sri Vikash Kumar Bhagat,
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in
G.R. Case No.2694 of 2013, arising out of Telco P.S. Case
No. 317 of 2013, by which the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for One years and to pay the
fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 438 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant
of bail during the pendency of this Criminal Revision
Application.
3. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana
Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Vikash
Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that after dismissal of the criminal appeal
the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court
on 15.10.2024 and since then he is in jail, i.e. for
about Four (04) months nine (09) days. It is further
submitted that even during trial, the petitioner, who is
the husband, had remained in custody for Three (03)
months Five (05) days since then and thus, the
petitioner has remained in custody in total for Seven
(07) months and Fourteen (14) days.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the Sate
and the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 have opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. Under the circumstances, although
there is a concurrent finding of fact against the
petitioner, who is the husband, however, considering
the period of the custody of the petitioner and the
facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering that this is a case of matrimonial dispute,
the petitioner, namely Manoj Kumar Singh 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 Vikash Kumar Bhagat,
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in
G.R. Case No.2694 of 2013, arising out of Telco P.S. Case
No. 317 of 2013.
7. Thus, the I.A. No. 92 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2024
8. However, it may be desirable that the
parties that the parties may settle the dispute through
mediation as well as conciliation.
9. Under the circumstances, both the
petitioner and O.P. No.2 are directed to appear before
the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA on 18th
March, 2025 at 11.30 A.M. The learned Member
Secretary, JHALSA shall appoint a Mediator for
amicable settlement of the dispute between both the
sides and submit the report on or before this Court on
or before 21st April, 2025.
10. Put up this case on 24th April, 2025.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
JHALSA for the needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
