Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Prasad
Durga Charan Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction and sentence (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consideration of custody and bail conditions (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. arguments for and against bail (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observation on petitioner's custody. (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and procedural next steps (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
I.A. No. 10102 of 2024
It appears from the office note dated 28.01.2025 that notice has been issued upon the opposite party no. 2 through Speed Post as well as ordinary process in light of the order dated 23.10.2024 by the Co ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. However, it further appears from the office note dated 28.01.2025 that undelivered registered cover returned unserved with note that ^^bl irs ij bl uke ds o;fDr dk irk ugh pyk okil A**
2. The present Criminal Revision No. 263 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015 by Sri Ghulam Haider, learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Special FTC (CAW), Bermo at Tenughat whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Special FTC (CAW), Bermo at Tenughat has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 30
Matrimonial disputes invoking IPC Sections 498(A) and 494 require careful consideration of evidence and circumstances for bail applications.
Mediation is encouraged in matrimonial disputes, with courts considering custody time and readiness to settle when evaluating bail applications.
The court emphasizes the importance of mediation in matrimonial disputes and grants provisional bail based on the parties' willingness to settle.
The court granted bail in a matrimonial dispute case after considering the total custody period, despite a concurrent finding of guilt under Section 498-A.
The court granted bail to the petitioner considering the lengthy custody and absence of the complainant, emphasizing the need for the complainant's presence in court.
The court emphasized the significance of custody duration in bail considerations, allowing the petitioner bail after eight months of incarceration.
The court condoned a 588-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision under the Limitation Act due to the petitioner's custody and financial constraints, emphasizing leniency in such circumstances.
The court grants bail to the petitioner during the pendency of a criminal revision due to lack of serious allegations and confinement factors.
The court granted bail during a pending criminal revision considering the petitioner's custody duration while imposing conditions to prevent future offenses.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the necessity of compensation and the legal obligation of cheque issuance.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
