IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Ravi Ray, Son of Late Devendra Kumar Verma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Respondents
Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 465 - Criminal Revision Application challenging the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for cheating and forgery - The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three years and two years respectively, along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- - The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge affirming the lower court's judgment - The petitioner claimed the allegations were false and requested bail during the revision application. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 8)
(B) Bail - The court granted provisional bail for six months, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish bail bonds. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for cheating an amount of Rs. 8,88,000/- and has been in custody since 09.07.2024, asserting the allegations against him were concocted.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was granted provisional bail for six months on specific conditions, including the deposit of a demand draft.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail pending the criminal revision application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the facts, circumstances of the case, and the petitioner's custody status in deciding to grant provisional bail.
Result: I.A. No. 7879 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
I.A. No.7879 of 2024
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2022 by Sri Kalpana Hazarika, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgement of conviction order of sentence dated 08.09.2022 passed by Sri Milan Kumar, learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Civil Court, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.332 of 2007 T.R. Case No.12 of 2022 arising out of C/1 Case No.29 of 2007 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 420 and 465 of IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years and S.I. for two years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-.
2. I.A. No. 7879 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.
3. 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 the petitioner was the employee of the Informant i.e. O.P. No.2 and the allegation against the petitioner are false and concocted.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit demand draft Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) without prejudice to this case in the name of the Opposite Party No.2 in the Office of learned Registrar General and as such he may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P. P has submitted that this is a case of cheating of amount of Rs.8,88,000/-(Eight Lakh Eighty Eight thousand).
6. It is submitted that the prayer for bail may be rejected. It appears that in pursuant to order dated 24.01.2025, passed by this Court notice was sent upon the O.P. No.2 but undelivered registered cover of notice has returned unserved with the endorsement “insufficient address”.
7. It appears that the petitioner was the employee of the Opposite Party No.2. and the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2024.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely Ravi Ray is directed to be released on Provisional Bail of six (06) months, on furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Milan Kumar, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa / or his Successor Court in connection with G.R. Case No.332 of 2007, T.R. Case No.12 of 2022 and one bailor should be own relative of the petitioner subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall deposit Demand Draft of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) in the name of the Opposite party No.2 in the Office of learned Registrar General without prejudice to his case, on or before 7th March 2025 and shall file an affidavit in this regard.
9. Thus, I.A. No. 7879 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
Cr. Rev. No.1162 of 2023
10. Put up this case on 27th March 2025.
11. In the meantime, let fresh notice be issued upon the Opposite Party No.2, as to why this Criminal Revision Application be not admitted and disposed of at the time of admission stage itself, by registered post with A/D as well as ordinary process and for which, requisites etc. must be filed within one (1) week from today.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar General and learned Court below.
The court granted provisional bail to the petitioner based on the circumstances of the case and custody status, requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a condition.
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.
The court granted bail during a pending criminal revision considering the petitioner's custody duration while imposing conditions to prevent future offenses.
The conviction under Section 420 IPC was deemed erroneous as the actual landlord received the full consideration, establishing the petitioner's innocence.
Provisional bail can be granted where the accused has been in custody for an extended period, especially in cases involving personal relationships and absence of the complainant, balancing personal l....
Public servants are held to higher standards of trust; misappropriation of funds invokes strict legal consequences under Section 409 IPC, emphasizing accountability and integrity.
The court ruled that willingness to compromise and time served in custody are valid grounds for granting bail in criminal proceedings.
The court emphasized the significance of custody duration in bail considerations, allowing the petitioner bail after eight months of incarceration.
The court finds that considerations of custody duration and criminal history are pivotal in granting bail under the R.P. (U.P.) Act, balancing rights of the accused against law enforcement needs.
The court emphasizes the importance of a claimant's conduct in relation to loan agreements and considers custody duration in granting bail under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.