Jharkhand High Court
Mahabir Pandit Son Of Late Jhannu Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 489 of 2024
....
Mahabir Pandit Son of Late Jhannu Pandit, Aged about 46
years, resident of Village-Burihikora PO & PS -Deodanr,
District- Godda (Jharkhand) ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dehri Devi, W/o Mahabir Pandit, Resident of Village-
Lakhanpur, PO & PS- Ramgarh, District- Dumka (Jharkhand)
...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2: None.
.....
05/22.01.2025 It appears from the service report that notice has been
personally served upon the opposite party no. 2 personally.
However, when the case is called out, none had appeared on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay
of 588 days in filing the instant Cr. Rev. No. 489 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is husband and after dismissal of the Criminal
Appeal No. 54 of 2016, he had surrendered on 17.07.2023 and
thereafter he is custody for more than one and half years. It is
submitted that due to paucity of money, this Criminal Revision
could not filed within time and as such, delay of 588 days in
filing Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2016 may be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
5. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State and considering the custody of the
petitioner and also in view of the averments made in para- 5 to
9 of the instant I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 and taking lenient view,
the delay of 588 days in preferring the instant Cr. Rev. No. 489
of 2024 is, hereby, condoned.
7. Thus, I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
8. The present Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2024 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 16.06.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2016 by
Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Dumka whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Dumka has dismissed with modification in the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2016 passed by
Sri Nishant Kumar, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Dumka and wherein the accused- Kushami Devi has been
acquitted and the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld
for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
with modification in sentence from R.I. for three (3) years to
R. I. for two (2) years and ten (10) months and to pay fine of
Rs. 10,000/-, Although vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sri Nishant Kumar,
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with
G. R. No. 45 of 2009 corresponding to PCR No. 461 of 2008
[T. R. No. 133 of 2016], the petitioner was convicted for the
offences under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years.
9. I. A. No. 5954 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal
Revision Application.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State are present.
11. However, none appears on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2, when the case is called out, although the notice
was personally served upon the opposite party no. 2 on
14.10.2024, which is evident from the service report of notice
by Judge-In-charge/Registrar I/C, Nazarat, Civil Court,
Dumka.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by
the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in the
eyes of law. It is submitted that allegation of demand of dowry
of Rs. 20,000/- cash and other household articles and torture
upon the complainant by the petitioner are false and concocted.
It is submitted that the petitioner is husband and after dismissal
of the Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2016, he had surrendered on
17.07.2023 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
13. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is husband and
the accused persons had demanded Rs. 20,000/- cash and other
household articles and torture upon the complainant and hence,
no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below
and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
14. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and
the fact that the petitioner is the husband and he has remained
in custody for more than one and half years.
15. Under the circumstances, the petitioner namely
Mahabir Pandit is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri
Nishant Kumar, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka or
his Successor Court in connection with G. R. No. 45 of 2009
corresponding to PCR No. 461 of 2008 [T. R. No. 133 of
2016].
16. Thus, I. A. No. 5954 of 2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
17. Issue fresh notice upon the opposite party nos. 2 under
registered cover with A/D and ordinary process and for which
requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today.
18. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.
19. Put up this case on 25.03.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
