SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Manoj Kumar Singh - Petitioner 
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent 
Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2024 With I.A. No. 92 of 2025 
Decided On : 24-02-2025


Important Points

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.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a)
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.438

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Criminal Revision Application challenging conviction and sentence for cruelty against wife - Petitioner sentenced to one year and fined Rs.5,000/- - Concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner - Bail granted considering total custody period of over seven months and nature of matrimonial dispute. (Paras 1, 6)

(B) Bail - Considerations - The court considered the duration of custody and the nature of the case in deciding to grant bail, emphasizing the importance of resolving matrimonial disputes amicably. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 498-A, has been in custody for seven months and fourteen days, following the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.

Findings of Court:
Despite concurrent findings against the petitioner, bail was granted due to the duration of custody and the nature of the dispute being matrimonial.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case and his period of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while there was a concurrent finding against the petitioner, the total duration of custody and the matrimonial nature of the dispute warranted bail.

Result: I.A. No. 92 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 92 of 2025

1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2024, passed by Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2022 dismissing the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2022, passed by Sri Vikash Kumar Bhagat, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No.2694 of 2013, arising out of Telco P.S. Case No. 317 of 2013, by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for One years and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant of bail during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after dismissal of the criminal appeal the petitioner has surrendered before the Trial Court on 15.10.2024 and since then he is in jail, i.e. for about Four (04) months nine (09) days. It is further submitted that even during trial, the petitioner, who is the husband, had remained in custody for Three (03) months Five (05) days since then and thus, the petitioner has remained in custody in total for Seven (07) months and Fourteen (14) days.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the Sate and the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Under the circumstances, although there is a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, who is the husband, however, considering the period of the custody of the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that this is a case of matrimonial dispute, the petitioner, namely Manoj Kumar Singh 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 Vikash Kumar Bhagat, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No.2694 of 2013, arising out of Telco P.S. Case No. 317 of 2013.

7. Thus, the I.A. No. 92 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2024

8. However, it may be desirable that the parties that the parties may settle the dispute through mediation as well as conciliation.

9. Under the circumstances, both the petitioner and O.P. No.2 are directed to appear before the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA on 18th March, 2025 at 11.30 A.M. The learned Member Secretary, JHALSA shall appoint a Mediator for amicable settlement of the dispute between both the sides and submit the report on or before this Court on or before 21st April, 2025.

10. Put up this case on 24th April, 2025.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the JHALSA for the needful.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top