Jharkhand High Court
Manik Chandra Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 381 of 2020
....
1. Manik Chandra Dutta
2. Arun Kumar Dutta
3. Varun Kumar Dutta ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Md. Falad Allam, A. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate
......
I. A. No. 1560 of 2021
07/19.06.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete
the name of the petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta in I. A. No.
1560 of 2021 as the petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta has already
been arrested.
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 381 of 2020 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
04.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2017 by Sri
Devesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge- III,
Jamtara whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara has
allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2017 in part by reversing
the judgment dated 13.06.2017 passed by Md. Abdul Naseer
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with
Jamtara P. S. Case No. 113 of 2009 corresponding to G. R. No. 361
of 2009 [T.R. No. 188 of 2017] and learned Additional Sessions
Judge- III, Jamtara has convicted the petitioners for the offences
under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 504/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of two
(2) and half (1/2) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the
offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of six (6) months and to
pay the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 323/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a
period of one (1) month for the offence under Section 341/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six
(6) months and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under
Section 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the petitioners
have been acquitted for the offences under Section 379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Although, vide judgment dated 13.06.2017, the learned
Trial Court i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara has
acquitted all the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341/34,
323/34, 325/34, 504/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. I.A. No. 1560 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner no. 1, Manik Chandra Dutta and petitioner no. 3, Varun
Kumar Dutta under Rule 159 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules,
seeking exemption from surrendering before the learned Court
below.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Appellate Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that this is a case of
reversal of judgment passed by the learned Trial Court by the
learned Appellate Court. It is submitted that there is land dispute
between the both the sides and there is a case and counter case,
which has been admitted by the Informant during his cross-
examination. It is submitted that X-ray report was received after
delay of twelve (12) days and the same has not been considered by
the learned Appellate Court while convicting the petitioners and as
such, in the interest of justice, the petitioner no. 1, Manik Chandra
Dutta and petitioner no. 3, Varun Kumar Dutta may be exempted
from surrendering before the learned Court below.
5. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 raised
objection and has further submitted that the X-ray report was issued
on 09.08.2009 i.e. on the date of FIR, which is evident from
Ext.-11. Hence, no illegality was committed by the learned
Appellate Court below by convicting the petitioner no. 1 and
petitioner no. 3. It is submitted that the informant and his witnesses
have fully supported the prosecution case against the petitioner
no. 1 and petitioner no. 3. It is submitted that some compensation
also may be given to the Informant for fracture of his hand and
hence the prayer for exemption of the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner
no. 3 may be rejected.
7. It appears that there is land dispute between the parties. It
further appears that this is a case of reversal of judgment by the
learned Appellate Court below.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also
in light of the provisions of Rule 159 of the High Court of
Jharkhand Rules, 2001 and if there is rival findings of the learned
Trial Court below as well as learned Appellate Court below, at this
stage, it will be desirable that the petitioner no. 1, Manik Chandra
Dutta and petitioner no. 3, Varun Kumar Dutta may be given
benefit of exemption from surrendering before the learned Court
below and hence, the petitioner no. 1, Manik Chandra Dutta and
petitioner no. 3, Varun Kumar Dutta are exempted from
surrendering in the learned Court below subject to condition that
petitioner no. 1, Manik Chandra Dutta and petitioner no. 3, Varun
Kumar Dutta are directed to deposit the Demand Draft of Rs.
15,000/- in the name of the Informant before the learned Court
below within fifteen (15) days and the learned Court below is
directed to disburse the same in favour of the Informant on filing
such application and on proper verification.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1560 of 2021 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
10. I. A. (Cr.) No. 6872 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta for grant of bail, during
pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for Informant.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
no. 2 that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in
the eyes of law. It is submitted that there is land dispute between
the both the sides and there is a case and counter case, which has
been admitted by the Informant during his cross-examination. It is
submitted that X-ray report was received after delay of twelve (12)
days and the same has not been considered by the learned Appellate
Court while convicting the petitioners. It is submitted that the
petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta is in custody since 31.05.2025
and as such, the petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta may be
enlarged on bail.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed
the prayer for bail.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Informant
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that all the petitioners
have assaulted the Informant while he was constructing his house
and due to which he fell down in Nala and sustained injury in his
hands and due to which his hand was fractured. It is submitted that
although learned Trial Court had wrongly acquitted the petitioners
including the petitioner no. 2. However, the learned Appellate Court
has reversed the finding of the learned Trial Court and has
convicted all the petitioners including the petitioner no. 2 for the
offences under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 504/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and as such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
no. 2 may be rejected.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that this is a case of reversal of judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court by the learned Appellate Court.
16. It further appears that the petitioner no. 2 is in custody
since 31.05.2025.
17. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case
and considering the fact that there was delay of twelve (12) days in
receiving the X-ray report, during pendency of this Criminal
Revision Application, the petitioner no. 2, Arun Kumar Dutta is
directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Md. Abdul Naseer learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara/or his Successor Court in connection
with Jamtara P. S. Case No. 113 of 2009 corresponding to G. R. No.
18. Thus, I. A. (Cr.) No. 6872 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below
for the needful.
20. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
