Jharkhand High Court
Durga Charan Mahto Aged About 52 Years ... 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. 263 of 2025
....
Durga Charan Mahto aged about 52 years son of Jhagru Mahto,
resident of Village-Rohar, PO and PS- Peterwar, District-Bokaro
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chinta Devi wife of Durga Charan Mahto resident of Village-
Rohar, PO and PS- Peterwar, District-Bokaro at present resident
of Village- Govindpur, PO & PS-Bokaro Thermal, Bokaro
...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2: None.
.....
05/07.03.2025 It appears from the office note dated 28.01.2025 that
notice has been issued upon the opposite party no. 2 through
Speed Post as well as ordinary process in light of the order
dated 23.10.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. However, it further
appears from the office note dated 28.01.2025 that undelivered
registered cover returned unserved with note that "bl irs ij bl
uke ds o;fDr dk irk ugh pyk okil A".
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 263 of 2025 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 21.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015 by
Sri Ghulam Haider, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Special FTC (CAW), Bermo at Tenughat whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special FTC (CAW), Bermo at
Tenughat has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015
by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.03.2015 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case
No. 48 of 2001 corresponding to T.R. No. 895 of 2015 by
which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 498 (A) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year and to
pay the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Sections 498
(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for
a period of one (1) and half (1/2) year and to pay the fine of
Rs. 500/- for the offence under Sections 494 of the Indian
Penal Code.
However, the persons Jhagru Mahto, Bisheswar
Mahto, Paro Kumari, Hari Charan Mahto and Rati Mahto have
been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court below.
All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. I. A. No. 10102 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the
Criminal Revision Application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State are present.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by
the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that petitioner has
neither tortured and demanded any dowry from the informant
nor has performed 2nd marriage. It is submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024 ie. for around seven
months and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has performed
2nd marriage with one Budhni Devi and hence, no illegality
has been committed by the learned Courts below and as such,
the prayer for bail may be rejected.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused
the records of this case.
8. It appears that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.
9. It further appears that the petitioner is in custody since
05.08.2024 ie. for around seven months.
10. Considering the custody of the petitioner and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner namely Durga Charan Mahto is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Sri Prem Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat/or his Successor Court in
Complaint Case No. 48 of 2001 corresponding to T.R. No. 895
of 2015 subject to condition that one of the bailor should be
own relative of the petitioner.
11. Thus, I. A. No. 10102 of 2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. Issue fresh notice upon the opposite party nos. 2 on her
present and correct address under registered cover with A/D and
ordinary process and for which requisites etc. must be filed
within two weeks from today.
13. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records
and neatly typed copy of the case diary.
14. Put up this case on 12.06.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
