Santosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 116 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2025

Santosh Kumar Singh, aged about 44 years, Son of Sri Bishwanath
Singh, resident of Village- Serenghatu Torar, P.O.-Juria, P.S. &
District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand                  ..... Petitioner
                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ajay Kumar, aged about 39 years, Son of Sri Shyamsunder Sao,
   resident of Village- Jelkhana Kutmu, P.O. Nigni, P.S. & District-
   Lohardaga, Jharkhand.                        ..... Opposite Parties
                        ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey 2, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate.

---------

th Order No. 02 /Dated: 05 May, 2025

I.A. No. 5613 of 2025

1. I.A. No. 5613 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1038 days.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to financial crunch, the petitioner could not file this criminal revision within time. It is submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 has also filed I.A. No. 5614 of 2025 and hence, the delay of 1038 days in filing this instant Criminal Revision Application may be condoned.

4. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has raised no objection.

5. It appears that petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.03.2025.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as O.P. No.2 and in view of the averments made in paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 of

Page | 1 the I.A. No. 5613 of 2025 the delay of 1038 days in filing the instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby condoned.

7. Thus, I.A. No. 5613 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

8. This criminal revision petition has filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed by Shri Kankan Pattadar, the learned Additional Session Judge-IV, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017 filed under Section 374 (3)(a) of the Cr.P.C. whereby the appeal has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2017passed by Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No. 349 of 2016, whereby 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 months for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

9. I.A. No. 4582 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 438 (1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.

10. Another I.A. No. 5614 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 in the light of settlement between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2.

11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 and petitioner has paid all due amount to the O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.03.2025 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

13. Learned APP for the State has raised no objection.

Page | 2

14. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that he has also filed I.A. No. 5614 of 2025 and also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 and as such, appropriate order may be passed.

15. Para Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the I.A. No. 5614 of 2025 which read as follows:

"Para:-1 That the present Interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 with a prayer for his intervention in connected application in light of subsequent development and in light of settlement arrived at between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 due to intervention of well-wishers and common friends. Para:-3 That O.P. No. 2 states and submits that with the intervention of common friends and well-wishers, the compromise has been arrived at between him and the petitioner and it has mutually been decided to settle the matter outside court. The O.P. No. 2 in terms of settlement has received all due money from the petitioner on 28.03.2025 in connection with Complaint Case No. 349 of 2016 and now there is no outstanding from the petitioner.

Para:- 4 That the O.P. No. 2 states and submits that there is no ill will or grievance amongst him and the petitioner.

Thus, compromise/settlement has been arrived between them".

16. It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.03.2025.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely, Santosh Kumar Singh is directed to be released on bail, on

Page | 3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga or his Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 349 of 2016.

18. Thus, I.A. No. 4582 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

19. Put up this case in the 1st week of July, under heading for "Admission".

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Simran/

Page | 4