Jharkhand High Court
Rashid Yusuf vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.316 of 2024
....
Rashid Yusuf ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Subhash Kumar Agarwal ......Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Rashidi, Advocate
Md. Azam, Advocate
Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P
......
Order No.10/17.07.2025
I.A. No.3492 of 2024
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the
petitioner by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 22.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2022 by Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Lohardaga by which the appeal has been dismissed and
thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 14.06.2022 passed by Smt. Puja Kumari Lal,
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga in connection
with Complaint Case No.209 of 2019, by which the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation of
Rs.2,10,000/- and in default, he is further sentence to undergo S.I.
for two years for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. I.A. No.3492 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the
pendency of this Criminal Revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned
Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of
law. It is submitted that the cheque of the petitioner has been
misused by the O.P. No.2 and petitioner has not taken any loan of
Rs.1,95,000/- from O.P. No.2. It is submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 19.03.2024 and thus, he has remained in custody for
one year and four months, although he was imposed sentence of
S.I. for one year only. Learned counsel further submits that since
the petitioner is in custody because he could not deposit the
amount of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. Hence, he may be
enlarged on bail.
5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is concurrent finding of facts against the
petitioner and learned Trial court has rightly imposed the sentence
against him and passed the order for payment of compensation of
Rs.2,10,000/- to the O.P. No.2. Since, the learned Trial court has
already directed the petitioner to undergo S.I. for two years, in
default of payment of compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-, the prayer
for bail may be rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court Record and also considered the
submissions of both sides.
7. It transpires that this is a case of friendly loan of
Rs.1,95,000/- said to be given by the complainant-O.P. No.2 to the
petitioner on 10.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner came to the
house of complainant on 07.03.2019 and handed over cheque No.
028543 dated 07.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- to the
complainant, but the said cheque was returned by the Bank
showing 'Account Closed'.
8. It appears that O.P. No.2 has not appeared as yet despite
serving valid notice to O.P. No.2 in light of the order dated
16.06.2025 passed by this Court.
9. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since
19.03.2024.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner
namely, Rashid Yusuf, is directed to be released on bail at this
stage, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of Smt. Puja Kumari Lal, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Lohardaga or her successor, in connection with
Complaint Case No.209 of 2019, subject to condition that one of
the bailers must be his own relative.
11. Thus, I.A. No.3492 of 2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. Put up this case after eight weeks, awaiting appearance of
O.P. No.2.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-
