Matrimonial disputes invoking IPC Sections 498(A) and 494 require careful consideration of evidence and circumstances for bail applications.

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 of 2015 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2015 passed by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2001 corresponding to T.R. No. 895 of 2015 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 494 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year and topay the fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence under Sections 498 (A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) and half (1/2) year and to pay the fine ofRs. 500/ for the offence under Sections 494 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

However, the persons Jhagru Mahto, Bisheswar Mahto, Paro Kumari, Hari Charan Mahto and Rati Mahto have been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court below.

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. I. A. No. 10102 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that petitioner has neither tortured and demanded any dowry from the informant nor has performed 2^nd marriage. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024 ie. for around seven months and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has performed 2^nd marriage with one Budhni Devi and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records of this case.

8. It appears that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.

9. It further appears that the petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024 ie. for around seven months.

10. Considering the custody of the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner namely Durga Charan Mahto is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Prem Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat/or his Successor Court in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2001 corresponding to T.R. No. 895 of 2015 subject to condition that one of the bailor should be own relative of the petitioner.

11. Thus, I. A. No. 10102 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 263 of 2025

12. Issue fresh notice upon the opposite party n