Sunil Kumar Akela vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 27 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sunil Kumar Akela vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Prasad

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No.1316 of 2023

       Sunil Kumar Akela, Prop. Akela Coal Enterprises, son of Lachhu
       Sahu, aged about 25 years, resident of Village - Khepia,
       PO+P.S.- Simariya, District- Chatra          ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand
       2. M/s. One Up Minerals & Infrastructure Private Ltd. Through
          its authorized representative, Panchwati Tower, PO + PS-
          Argora, Ranchi                            .... Opp. Parties

       CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

       For the Petitioner: Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
       For the State    :  Mr. Achinto Sen, APP
       For the O.P. No.2:  Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
                           Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, Advocate
                              -----

8/01.05.2025 This Criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- VII, Ranchi in criminal Appeal No.16 of 2022, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2022 passed in complaint Case No.2100 of 2015 by Mrs. Ruchi Dayal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi arising out of T.R. No. 511 of 2022, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to pay the fine of INR 28,00,000/- as per section 143 (1) of the NI Act r/w section 357 (1) (3) of the Cr.P.C and in default of payment, the petitioner was directed to undergo S.I for one (01) year.

2. The I.A. No.3741 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence during pendency of this Criminal Appeal by granting bail to the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24th July 2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 opposed the prayer for bail submitting that this is a case of non-payment of Rs.17,20,000/- as the petitioner had purchased the coal, for which he had issued a cheque of Rs.17,20,000/-, which was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and in support of his case, the complainant has proved his case during the course of evidence and has proved several documents and therefore prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the records. It appears that the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs.17,20,000/-for the transaction of coal.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the custody of the petitioner, who has served more than nine months out of total sentence of one year, the petitioner namely Sunil Kumar Akela is directed to be released on Bail on furnishing the bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Mrs. Ruchi Dayal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi or her Successor Court, in connection with Complaint Case No.2100 of 2015, T.R. No.511 of 2022.

8. Thus, I.A. No.3741 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

9. In the meantime, the petitioner may furnish Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 in order to arrive at an amicable settlement in future.

10. Put up this case after four weeks.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) R.Kumar