The court granted bail during a pending criminal revision considering the petitioner's custody duration while imposing conditions to prevent future offenses.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

It appears from the office note that dated 01.03.2025 that service report of notice has not been received in the light of the order dated 13.02.2025.

I.A. No.1517 of 2025

2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.09.2024 passed by Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.221 of 2022 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2022 passed by Ms. Ekta Saxena, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class- Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.2219 of 2011 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 406/420/468 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years and also pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 406 IPC, S.I. for 3 years and also to pay the fine of Rs.5,000 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and S.I. for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs.4,000 for the offence under Section 468 IPC. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. I.A. No.1517 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.

4. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bandana Sinha, learned APP for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that petitioner has remained in custody during trial from 05.06.2012 till 19.07.2014. It is further submitted that after dismissal of appeal the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered on 01.02.2025 and since then he is lying in jail and as such he has remained in custody for around two years, two months and fifteen days out of S.I of three (03) years and as such he may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner has cheated several victims and as such the bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records of this case, it appears that there was some monetary transaction between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 in the name of providing job.

8. Although the gravity of offence is severe, however, considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner namely, Ashok Kumar Singh, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Ms. Ekta Saxena, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-Jamshedpur/or her Successor Court, in connection with Complaint Case No.2219 of 2011, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the own blood relation of the petitioner.

9. The petitioner shall also file an Undertaking not to indulge in such type of crime in future again, failing which, the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail. The petitioner is also forbidden for alluring any persons in future.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur to look into the conduct of the petitioner.

11. Thus, I.A. No.1517 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 134 of 2025

12. Issue fresh notice to the O.P. No.2 as to why this case be not admitted and disposed of at the time of admission stage itself, by registered post with A/D as well as ordinary pr