Jharkhand High Court
Subhash Sharma @ Pintu Sharma @ Subhash ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.238 of 2024
....
Subhash Sharma @ Pintu Sharma @ Subhash Chandra Sharma
aged about 42 years Son of Gopal Shankar Sharma resident of
Village Sonpurwa, P.O. Dewary Cement Factory, P.S.
Hussainabad, District Palamau
......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ayodhya Vishwakarma, S/o Late Gauri Mistry, R/o Vill:-
Redwa, P.O. Daltonganj, P.S. Town, District-Palamau.
......Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
(Video Conferencing)
: Mr Amand Deep
For the State : Mr. Sashi Kr. Verma, A.P.P
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Karbir, Advocate
......
Order No.10/06.03.2025
Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
petitioner has appeared through the Video Conferencing, Audio
and video quality of Video Conferencing is proper.
2. This Criminal Revision Application No.238 of 2024 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 09.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2020 by
Sri Shankar Kumar Maharaj, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the appeal filed on
behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2020
passed by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned S.D.J.M, Palamau at
Daltonganj in Complaint Case No.312 of 2009 by which the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay the
fine of Rs.5000/-.
3. Heard Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, learned A.P.P and Mr. Kabir
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
4. I.A. No.11038 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for suspension of sentence and for release of petitioner
on bail, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgments and order passed by learned Courts below are
illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further
submitted that the petitioner i.e. the husband is ready to settle the
dispute with the O.P. No.2 and he is ready to keep his wife and
daughter with full honour and dignity and still ready to get the case
compromised with O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is
in custody since 04.09.2024, hence he may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer
for bail.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also opposed the
prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has inflicted both
mentally and physically cruelty upon the informant. Apart from
this the petitioner has also neglected his wife and daughter and also
not paying the maintenance amount regularly and hence the prayer
for bail may be rejected.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner again
submitted that the petitioner is still willing to keep his wife and
daughter and ready to compromise the case.
9. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
going through the Lower Court Records of this case, it appears that
this is a case of matrimonial dispute between the parties.
10. It also appears that the petitioner i.e. the husband is in
custody since 04.09.2024 i.e. for more than six months and the
petitioner is still ready to settle the dispute with O.P. No.2.
11. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of this
case and considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner
namely Subhash Sharma @ Pintu Sharma @ Subhash Chandra
Sharma is directed to be released on Provisional Bail for the period
of six months on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of Sri Deepak Kumar, learned S.D.J.M, Palamau at
Daltonganj, or his Successor Court in Complaint Case No.312 of
2009 subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be own
relative of the petitioner
12. It will be desirable that the petitioner should take care of
the wife and pay the maintenance amount regularly in the bank
account of the O.P. No.2 for the survival of the O.P. No.2 i.e. the
wife and the daughter of the petitioner.
13. Put up this case on 24th April 2025.
14. Both the Petitioner and the O.P. No.2 are directed to
appear in person before this Court on the said date i.e. 24.04.2025.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court
below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
