Suresh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3180 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Suresh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr. Revision No. 1170 of 2024
                                   ....

Suresh Prasad, Son of Kewal Mahto, aged about- 45 years, resident of Village- Urwan, PO & PS- Chandwara, District-

            Koderma                                            ......Petitioner
                                     Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Brij Nandan Prasad Verma, son of Ramsahay Verma, Resident of Village- Gumo, Barwadih, PO- Jhumritelaiya, PS- Telaiya, District- Koderma ...... Opp. Parties.

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-----

            For the Petitioner      : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate
            For the State           : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP
            For the O. P. No. 2     : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, Advocate
                                ------


03/07.03.2025      The present Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf

of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 09.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2023 by Sri Bal Krishna Tiwari, the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma by which learned Sessions Judge, Koderma has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2023 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2023 passed by Sri Manoranjan Kumar-III, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma in connection with C. Case No. 980 of 2022 corresponding to T. R. No. 334 of 2023 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 six (6) months and further directed to pay Rs. 3,80,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

2. The instant I.A. No. 12637 of 2024 has been filed under Sections 430 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Court are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken registration no. of JCB Machine in his name and the opposite party no 2 has misused the security cheque, which were given by the petitioner whereas the petitioner was partner with the opposite party no. 2 and one another person. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and as such, he be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has not paid Rs. 3,80,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 till date and as such, petitioner may be directed to return the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/-.

7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and one other person were partners.

8. It also appears that the learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay compensation amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the opposite party no. 2.

9. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody since, 18.10.2024 i.e. for around four (4) months out of sentence of six (6) months.

10. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since

18.10.2024 i.e. for around four (4) months out of sentence of six (6) months, during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Suresh Prasad is directed to be released on provisional bail for a period of six (6) months from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Manoranjan Kumar-III, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma/ or his Successor Court in connection with C. Case No. 980 of 2022 corresponding to T. R. No. 334 of 2023 subject to condition that the petitioner will deposit Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of opposite party no. 2 at the time of furnishing bail bonds for the present.

11. Thus, I. A. No. 12637 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.