Mediation is encouraged in matrimonial disputes, with courts considering custody time and readiness to settle when evaluating bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 6254 of 2024

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

2. Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 prays for time by submitting that Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel has to argue this case on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

3. However, this Court is not inclined to grant time on the aforesaid ground.

4. The present Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023 by the Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2023 passed by Sri Tausif Meraj, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar West Singhbhum in connection with Complaint Case No. 41 of 2016 corresponding to T. R. No. 44 of 2023 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 98 (A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 4 98(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6)months and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

5. I.A. No. 6254 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that allegation of demand of any dowry and torture against the petitioner are false and concocted. It is submitted that one maintenance case is also pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa between the parties and the petitioner hadpaid arrears of maintenance amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 15.12.2022 and in support of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photocopy of the order sheet dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in OMC No. 14/2017 (D). It is submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and he is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2024 and has also submitted that the petitioner was also in custody for about two months and ten days during the trial and as such the petitioner is in custody for around one year and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner had tortured and demanded dowry from the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 has been subjected to harassment and torture. It is submitted that the petitioner has not paid any amount of maintenance since the year 2022 and hence his prayer for bail may be rejected.

9. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that this is a case of matrimonial d