The court emphasizes the importance of a claimant's conduct in relation to loan agreements and considers custody duration in granting bail under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

It appears from the Office note that the Notice has been received by the wife of the O.P. No.2, which was issued to the O.P. No.2 in the light of order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as His Lordship then was) of this Court, however, when the case was called out none appeared for the O.P. No.2.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2023, passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2023, by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2023 passed by Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.390 of 2019 (T.R.No. 357 of 2023), by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for One (01) year and Six (06) months and to pay a fine amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation.

I.A. No. 7643 of 2024

3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for grant of bail.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 had not taken any loan of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs) from the Complainant, rather the Complainant-O.P. No.2 used to run a business of Chit Fund and he used to lure the customers including this petitioner and had obtained blank cheque in good faith from the petitioner. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 was a L.I.C. Agent and the license of the O.P. No.2 had been terminated, which is evident from the evidence of D.W.3, namely Rajan Prasad and the conduct of the O.P. No. 2 was not proper. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2024 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that this is a case of non-payment of a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs). It is submitted that the Complainant-O.P. No.2 has supported the case against the petitioner and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that Complainant-O.P. No. 2 was a L.I.C. Agent, who is alleged to have given loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioner.

7. It appears that the petitioner has examined himself as D.W.1 and also got examined two other witnesses, i.e. D.W.2, namely Rajan Prasad, who is the Administrative Officer of L.I.C., Chaibasa and D.W.3, namely Karan Singh Munda, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Chaibasa. D.W.2 has stated that the license of the O.P. No.2 was terminated by the L.I.C

8. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2024, i.e. around Seven (07) months.

9. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner, namely Rajesh Kumar Mahanti @ Rajesh Mahanti, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Chaibasa /or his Successor Court, in connection with Complaint Case No.390 of 2019 (T.R.No.357 of 2023), subject to the condition that one