The court ruled that a convicted individual may be granted bail after serving their sentence if circumstances justify such a decision.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 16.02.2023 passed by Sri Braj Kishore Pandey-II, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No.15 of 2018 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2017 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint No.0196 of 2013 (T.R. Case No.3651 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 three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. I.A. No.2010 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned APP for the State. However, none appears for the O.P. No.2 or her heir as it was found from the undelivered registered cover of the Notice of the O.P. No.2 that ‘Recipient’ has passed away.

4. It is 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 is in custody since 22.11.2024 and he has served the sentence but has not been enlarged on bail as he has not deposited the amount of compensation and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. It appears that the learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-.

7. It appears that the petitioner has completed the sentence of three months as he is in custody since 22.11.2024.

8. Considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Chhitaranjan Prasad Gupta is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh/ or his Successor Court in Complaint No.0196 of 2013 (T.R. Case No.3651 of 2017).

9. Thus, I.A. No.2010 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

10. I.A. No.6827 of 2024 is disposed of as not pressed for.

11. Put up this case on 30.04.2025, under the heading ‘For Admission.’