Jharkhand High Court
Koley Oraon @ Koleya Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1527 of 2023
....
Koley Oraon @ Koleya Oraon, aged about 60 years, S/O Late
Moneya Oraon @ Muniya Oraon R/O Village-Tan, PO-Jingi,
PS-Kuru, Dist.- Lohardaga ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Tara Devi, W/O Koley Oraon R/O Taan, PO & PS-
Kuru, District- Lohardagga ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2: None.
.....
I.A. (Cr.) No. 10981 of 2023
08/24.01.2025 The present Criminal Revision has been listed in the
light of the Bench slip filed yesterday i.e. on 23.01.2024 by the
petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is in custody for
around one and half years out of S. I. for two (2) years.
2. The instant I.A. (Cr.) No. 10981 of 2023 has been
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay of 1831 days in filing the instant Cr. Rev. No. 1527 of
2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is old aged person and suffering from dementia
and unable to remember any date or anything due to which
after passing of the judgment dated 09.09.2016 by Sri Rajeev
Anand, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014, he could not approach his
conducting counsel within time. However, when his wife
Uttim Devi learnt about the above mentioned judgment dated
09.09.2016, then she obtained certified copy of the judgment
and other documents on 24.11.2022 and then she approached
her lawyer for filing this instant Criminal Revision Application
before this Court in the month of January, 2023 and thereafter,
this Criminal Revision has been filed. It is submitted that the
complainant is not real wife of the petitioner. It is submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2023. It is
submitted that in view of the above, delay of 1831 days in
filing Cr. Rev. No. 1527 of 2023 may be condoned in the
interest of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
for condoning of delay.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
6. It appears that delay has not sufficiently explained by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant
Interlocutory Application. It is surprising that even after
obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and other
documents on 24.11.2022 and even after approaching the
concerned lawyer of this High Court, in the month of January,
2023, the present Criminal Revision has been filed on
30.11.2023. Therefore, the delay has not been properly
explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
instant Criminal Revision Application as well as in the
Limitation Petition. However, due to the fault on the part of the
parvikar and learned counsel for the petitioner, a person should
not be penalised.
7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is
old aged person and he is in custody since 12.06.2023 and
taking lenient view, the delay of 1831 days in preferring the
instant Cr. Rev. No. 1527 of 2023 is being condoned.
8. Thus, I.A. (Cr.) No. 10981 of 2023 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
9. The present Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2023 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 09.09.20216 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014
by Sri Rajeev Anand, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Lohardaga whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Lohardaga has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2014
and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.02.2014 passed by Sri. Chandrika Ram, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga
(Mahila) P. S. Case No. 10 of 2011 corresponding to G. R. No.
409 of 2011 [ T. R. No. 181 of 2014] by which the petitioner
has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498 (A) of
the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
11. 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 the complainant is not the real
wife of the petitioner, rather one Uttim Devi is the real wife of
the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was working in
CCL on the post of Clerk. It is submitted that the petitioner is
in custody since 12.06.2023 and as such, the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
12. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has deliberately
neglected his real wife Tara Devi and hence, the prayer for bail
of the petitioner may be rejected.
13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
14. It appears that the petitioner has not impleaded Tara
Devi as opposite party no. 2 by filing this instant Criminal
Revision Application.
15. It further appears from the pleadings made at para- 7
of the instant Criminal Revision No. 1527 of 2023 that the
petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2023 and vakalatnama has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which shows that it was
issued on 21.09.2023 by the Jailor, District Jail, Lohardaga.
16. Although the petitioner has not filed any application
under Section 389(1) of the Cr. P. C. for grant of bail.
However, he has made prayer in the prayer portion of this
Criminal Revision Application for grant of bail.
17. Though the conduct on the part of the pairvikar and
even learned counsel for the petitioner do not appear to be
proper, however considering the custody of the petitioner that
he is languishing in jail since 12.06.2023 i.e. more than 18
months out of sentence for R. I. for two (2) years, the
petitioner namely Koley Oraon @ Koleya Oraon 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. Chandrika Ram, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga/ or his Successor Court in
connection with Lohardaga (Mahila) P. S. Case No. 10 of 2011
corresponding to G. R. No. 409 of 2011 [ T. R. No. 181 of
2014] subject to the condition that one of bailor should be own
relative of the petitioner and with further condition that the
petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- before the JHALSA after being
released from jail within four weeks and shall file an affidavit
alongwith the receipt of Rs. 5,000/- before this Court.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to
implead the informant as opposite party no. 2, Tara Devi in this
Criminal Revision in course of the day.
19. Issue 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 one week from today.
20. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.
21. It requisites are filed, put up this case on 25.03.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
