SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Gurpreet Singh Virdi @ Gurpreet Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 194 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate:Mr.Agnivesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP

The court emphasized the significance of custody duration in bail considerations, allowing the petitioner bail after eight months of incarceration.

Headnote:

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Revision Application challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- - The appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, affirming the lower court's decision. (Paras 1, 4)

(B) Bail - The petitioner, in custody for approximately eight months, applied for bail during the pendency of the revision application - The court considered the duration of custody and the circumstances of the case, allowing bail on specific conditions. (Paras 2, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation due to a dishonored cheque. An agreement related to property purchase was mentioned as part of the case context. (Paras 1, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in custody for an extended period and decided to grant bail considering the circumstances. (Paras 8)

Issues: The court addressed whether the judgments and sentence were sustainable in law and the consideration of the petitioner’s defense. (Paras 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the duration of custody is a relevant factor in bail considerations, and the petitioner was granted bail due to the lengthy period of incarceration without trial conclusion. (Paras 8)

Result: I.A. No.1564 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No.1564 of 2025

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No.1, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.161 of 2024 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2024 passed by Sri Richesh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur in in C/1 Case No.3144 of 2021 (T.R.Case No.671 of 2024) 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 one year and to pay compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-.

2. I.A. No.1564 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. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned APP for the State.

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 defence of the petitioner was not considered by the learned Courts below. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2024 i.e. for around eight months and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

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

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the averments made in I.A. No.1564 of 2025, it appears that there is an agreement between the petitioner and wife of the O.P. No.2 with regard to purchase of five plots and for which certain payments were made.

7. It appears that petitioner is custody since 27.06.2024 i.e. for around eight months.

8. Considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Gurpreet Singh Virdi @ Gurpreet Singh 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 Richesh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur/ or his Successor Court in C/1 Case No.3144 of 2021 (T.R.Case No.671 of 2024.

9. Thus, I.A. No.1564 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

10. Issue notice to the O.P. No.2 as to why this Criminal Revision Application be not admitted and disposed of at the time of admission stage itself, by registered post with A/D as well as ordinary process and for which, requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today.

11. Put up this case on 30.04.2025, if requisites are filed.

12. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top