Jharkhand High Court
Parmanand Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 339 of 2025
....
Parmanand Kumar, aged about 40 yrs. S/o Late Balram Yadav,
R/o Bhuli, D Block Road, Sona Complex, PO & PS- Bhuli,
Dist.-Dhanbad ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jay Pal, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Shiv Pd. Gupta, R/o
Tanda, Katras Bazar, PO- Katras Bazar, PS- Katrasgarh, Dist.-
Dhanbad ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A. P. P.
For the O. P. No. 2 : Ms. Rashmi Lal, Advocate
.....
04/28.03.2025 The instant I. A. No. 3971 of 2025 has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the BNSS on behalf of the petitioner for
suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during pendency of
the present Criminal Revision and I. A. No. 3683 of 2025 has
been filed by way of a joint compromise petition.
2. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2023 by Sri Kuldeep, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad by which learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad has dismissed the
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2023 by affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2023 passed by
Ms. Divya Aswani, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 2484 of 2015
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.
2,00,000/- to the complainant.
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 the impugned judgement and order of sentence passed by the
learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in
the eye of law. It is submitted that the case has been
compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2
and the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,79,000/- to the opposite party
no. 2 and for which I. A. No. 3683 of 2025 has also been filed by
way of a joint compromise petition by the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 29.01.2025 and as such, he may be enlarged on
bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State raised no objection.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also raised
no objection and has admitted the factum of compromise
between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and has
submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has received the required
amount from the petitioner and necessary order may be passed.
7. Heard learned counsels for both the sides and from
going through the Records, it appears that the case has been
compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2
and the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,79,000/- to the opposite party
no. 2 and for which I. A. No. 3683 of 2025 has also been filed by
way of a joint compromise petition by the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 2. It also appears that the petitioner is in
custody since 29.01.2025.
8. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and the fact that the case has been compromised between
the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, during pendency of
this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Parmanand Kumar
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Ms. Divya Aswani, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad/or her Successor Court
in connection with Complaint Case No. 2484 of 2015.
9. Thus, I. A. No. 3971 of 2025 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
10. Put up this case on 16.04.2025.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
