Jharkhand High Court
Bidyut Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 142 of 2025
------
Bidyut Kumar Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dhananjay Kumar Singh .......Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P
For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
Order No: 05/ Dated: 17.03.2025
I.A No. 677 of 2025
I.A. No. 677 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay of 2333 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application.
2. Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the
State and Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the O.P
No. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not in touch with his pairvikar as well as his
counsel as his wife was suffering from cancer, who died during
the course of treatment in March 2024 and he is not aware of the
proceeding in the learned Court below and as such, there is delay
of 2333 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application. It is
submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2025 and
hence, the delay of 2333 days may be condoned.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is also ready to
settle the dispute with O.P No. 2 and has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- out
of settlement amount Rs. 2,50,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection at this
stage.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 has also raised no
objection and submitted that he is also ready to settle the dispute
with the petitioner, if the due amount is paid.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it
appears that though, the delay in filing this Criminal Revision has
not been satisfactorily explained but considering the fact that there
is no denial by the O.P No. 2 that the wife of the petitioner was
not suffering from cancer, lenient view can be taken.
7. It also appears that there is no dispute with regard to
payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner to the O.P No. 2.
However, the O.P No. 2 has raised dispute showing further
payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the petitioner to the O.P No. 2. Thus,
this is a case of part payment.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the fact that wife of the petitioner was suffering from
cancer who died on March 2024 and the petitioner is a
Government servant who is in custody 03.01.2025 and as such,
the delay of 2333 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application
is condoned.
9. Thus, I.A No. 677 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.
10. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated
31.05.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2017 by
Mrs. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI,
Dhanbad by which the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.11.2017 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar
Guria, learned S.D.J.M, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint
Case No. 784 of 2013, T.R Case No. 1763 of 2017 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 six (06)
months and to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/- along with the
cheque amount to the complainant.
11. I.A No. 678 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal
Revision Application.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts
below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that the petitioner has made part payment of
Rs. 1,50,000/- to the O.P No. 2. It is submitted that no witness has
been examined by the complainant-O.P No.2 to show payment of
Rs. 3,50,000/-.
13. It is further submitted that there was an agreement
between the petitioner and O.P No. 2 with regard to payment of
the amount in question and it was agreed by way of compromise
that petitioner will pay Rs. 2,50,000/- only instead of
Rs. 3,50,000/- to the O.P No. 2 and out of which, he had paid
Rs. 1,00,000/- by the money receipt dated 27.02.2020 which is
issued by O.P No. 2 and which is enclosed as Annexure-2. It is
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2025 and he
is also ready to settle the dispute with O.P No. 2 and hence, he
may be enlarged on bail.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raised no
objection at this stage.
15. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 that the O.P No. 2 is
also ready to settle the dispute with the petitioner provided, he
admitted the dues of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and
from going through the L.C.R, it appears that this is a case of
friendly loan and the petitioner is working in B.C.C.L.
17. This Court deprecates the conduct of O.P No. 2 for
claiming the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
18. It is evident from the receipt dated 27.02.2020 enclosed in
Supplementary Affidavit dated 04.02.2025 that the said receipt has
been enclosed in presence of his counsel at Dhanbad which is
enclosed at Page-4 and Page-5 to the said supplementary affidavit
issued by the O.P No. 2 in which he had agreed that the amount is
settled between the petitioner and O.P No. 2 to the extent of
Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of Rs. 3,50,000/- and still the lust of O.P
No. 2 for desire of more money is not exhausted and he had put
his signature on 27.02.2020.
19. It appears that the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the
O.P No. 2 which is evident from the receipt dated 27.02.2020 and
the said receipt is enclosed as Annexure-2 in the supplementary
affidavit dated 04.02.2025 by the O.P No. 2 Dhananjay Kumar
Singh.
20. Thereafter, he has further received Rs. 50,000/- on
29.03.2022 from the petitioner and the petitioner has also enclosed
the photocopy of U.P.I transaction showing payment of
Rs. 50,000/- to the O.P No. 2 in support of receipt dated
29.03.2022.
21. It reveals that the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the
O.P No. 2. However, the O.P No. 2 is resiling from his own
promise/compromise.
22. It appears that the petitioner is a Government servant and
is working in B.C.C.L.
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the
petitioner namely Bidyut Kumar Singh is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand
only) with two surities of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of Sri Ajay Kumar Guria, learned S.D.J.M, Dhanbad/or his
successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of
2013, T.R Case No. 1763 of 2017.
24. Thus, I.A No. 678 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.
25. However, it will open to the parties to make payment or
to contest the case on merit.
26. Call for the legible scanned copy of the Lower Court
Records.
27. Put up this case in the month of July, 2025 under the
heading "For Admission".
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/
