Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Verma @ Raj Kumar Dangi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2025
....
Raj Kumar Verma @ Raj Kumar Dangi, aged about 35 years,
son of Jitan Dangi @ Jitendra Dangi, resident of Ichak Khurd,
PO + PS- Simaria, District- Chatra ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mahendra Dangi, son of Ramsevak Mahto, resident of Ichak
Khurd, PO- Nawadih, Damol, PS- Simaria, District- Chatra
...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Imran Hassan, Advocate
.....
04/09.07.2025 The instant I.A. No. 8532 of 2025 has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the instant Cr. Revision
No. 659 of 2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there is delay of 83 days in filing the Cr. Revision No. 659 of
2025. It is submitted that due to financial crunch, he could not
file this Criminal Revision Application within time. It is
submitted that the case has been compromised between the
petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner is in
custody since 27.04.2025 and hence, the delay of 83 days in
filing the instant Cr. Revision No. 659 of 2025 may be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
4. 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.
5. 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.
No. 8532 of 2025 and taking lenient view, the delay of 83 days
in preferring the instant Cr. Revision No. 659 of 2025 is, hereby,
condoned.
6. Thus, I.A. No. 8532 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
7. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2024 by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw,
learned Sessions Judge, Chatra by which Criminal Appeal No. 25
of 2024 has been dismissed for default by the learned Sessions
Judge, Chatra and also the order dated 07.05.2025 by which
Review filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated
20.12.2024 has also been rejected as not maintainable. Although,
vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.07.2024, Sri Prashant Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Chatra has convicted the petitioner in connection with
Complaint Case No. 605 of 2020 for the offence under Section
138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of
twelve (12) months and further directed to pay Rs. 1,54,000/- to
the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (3) of the
Cr. P. C.
8. The instant I.A. No. 7074 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.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2.
10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2024 filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed for default by the learned Appellate
Court below without entering into the merit of the case and also
the order dated 07.05.2025 by which Review filed by the
petitioner for recalling the order dated 20.12.2024 has also been
rejected as not maintainable. It is further submitted that the
impugned judgement and order of sentence passed by the learned
Trial Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the
eye of law. It is submitted that the case has been compromised
between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and the
petitioner has paid the entire amount to the opposite party no. 2.
It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2025
and as such, he may be enlarged on bail.
11. The learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
12. Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate on the instruction of Sri
Nilesh Kumar Gupta, 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
and has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has received the
entire amount from the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2
has no grievance against the petitioner and necessary order may
be passed.
13. Heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused
the Records of this Criminal Revision Application and I.A. No.
7074 of 2025.
14. From the compromise petition filed before the learned
Trial Court i.e. Sri Prashant Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Chatra and which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to this
Criminal Revision Application, it appears that the case has been
compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2
and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the opposite
party no. 2. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody since
27.04.2025.
15. 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 Raj Kumar Verma
@ Raj Kumar Dangi is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Sri Prashant Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Chatra/or his Successor Court in connection with Complaint
Case No. 605 of 2020 subject to condition that one of the bailors
must be the close relative of the petitioner.
16. Thus, I.A. No. 7074 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
17. Call for the scanned copy of the learned Trial Court
Records as well as the learned Appellate Court Records.
18. Put up this case on 19.08.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
