Court considerations for bail include the duration of custody and the gravity of allegations, emphasizing that prolonged detention can warrant bail even in serious cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I. A. No. 6400 of 2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, although, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate had been appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case to appear on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Earlier also Mr. Chandan has not appeared 12.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 11.12.2024 respectively as it reveals from the order sheet of the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) and the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court.

2. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2022 by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka by which learned Sessions Judge, Dumka has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2022 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2022 passed by Sri. Sarthak Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dumka in connection with Masalia P. S. Case No. 49 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No. 1001 of 2016 [T. R. No. 618 of 2022] by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) month and to pay the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The instant I.A. No. 6400 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of the present Criminal Revision.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and concocted and at best he alleged to have caught hold the opposite party no. 2 from behind and there is no serious allegation against him. It is further submitted that there is delay of four days in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has outraged the modesty of the opposite party no. 2 and as such, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the Lower Court Records.

7. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner is alleged to have caught hold the opposite party no. 2 from behind.

8. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024 i.e. for more than eight months.

9. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024, during pendency of this Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely Officer Hansda is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri. Sarthak Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dumka/or his Successor Court in connection with Masalia P. S. Case No. 49 of 2016 corresponding to G. R. No. 1001 of 2016 [T. R. No. 618 of 2022] .

10. Thus, I.A. No. 6400 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.