Jharkhand High Court
Sushila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 592 of 2025
....
Sushila Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Jagdish Yadav,
resident of Kanchan Nagar, PO & PS- Burmamines, Town-
Jamshedpur, Disrict- East Singhbhum
......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ankit Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Baidnath Agarwal,
resident of H. No. 7, Chaki Line, Sakchi, PO & PS- Sakchi,
Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
...... Opp. Parties.
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate
------
02/03.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.
2. The instant I. A. (Cr.) No. 7423 of 2025 has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay
of 212 days in filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 592 of 2025.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is delay of 212 days in filing the
Cr. Revision No. 592 of 2025. It is submitted that the petitioner
is a lady and is in custody since 09.06.2025 and the case has
been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party
no. 2. It is submitted that due to financial crunch, the petitioner
could not file this Criminal Revision within time and as such,
delay of 221 days in preferring the instant Criminal Revision
Application may be condoned.
4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also raised
no objection and has admitted the factum of compromise
between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and
also in view of the averments made in para- 4 to 10 of the
instant I. A. (Cr.) No. 7423 of 2025 and the fact that the case has
been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party
no. 2 and taking lenient view, the delay of 221 days in
preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 592 of 2025 is, hereby,
condoned.
7. Thus, I. A. (Cr.) No. 7423 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
8. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.08.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2024 by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra
No. 1, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by
which learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2024 by affirming
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.02.2024 passed by Sri Vikash Kumar Bhagat, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with
Complaint Case No. 307 of 2021 by which the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act
and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year and
further directed to pay Rs. 4,65,000/- to the complainant as
compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrPC.
9. The instant I. A. (Cr.) No. 7422 of 2025 has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for
grant of bail during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned judgements and order of sentence passed by
the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the case has
been compromised between the petitioner and opposite party
no. 2 and the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to the opposite
party no. 2 by cash and the petitioner undertakes to pay the
remaining amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- on or before 15.09.2025. It
is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2025
and as such, she may be enlarged on bail.
12. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also
raised no objection and has admitted the factum of compromise
and there is settlement between the petitioner and the opposite
party no. 2 on the point of compromise.
14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and
from going through the perusal of I. A. (Cr.) No. 7422 of 2025,
it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and opposite
party no. 2 has been settled.
15. It appears that the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to
the opposite party no. 2.
16. It further appears that the petitioner is in custody since
09.06.2025.
17. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and the fact that the case has been compromised between
the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, during pendency of
this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Sushila Devi is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Vikash Kumar
Bhagat, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur/or his
Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 307 of
2021.
18. Thus, I. A. (Cr.) No. 7422 of 2025 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
19. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.
20. Put up this case on 23.09.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
