Provisional bail can be granted with conditions, especially in cases involving cheque dishonour under Section 138, while ensuring the interests of both parties are protected.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.2344 of 2025

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.05.2024 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.31 of 2023 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2022 passed by Shri Digvijay Nath Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-XXVIII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2583 of 2018 (T.R. No.475 of 2022) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.6,60,000/-.

2. I.A. No.2344 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.

3. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned APP for the State.

4. 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 has already paid Rs.4,50,000/- out of Rs.7,00,000/- to the O.P. No.2 during pendency of the case before the learned Courts below. It is further submitted that the petitioner is still ready to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- before the learned Registrar General of this Court without prejudice to his case. It is submitted that even the mediation had failed before the learned Court below due to hard approach of the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2025 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken Rs.7,00,000/- and the petitioner has not executed the sale deed in favour of the O.P. No.2 and as such the prayer for bail may be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records of this Criminal Revision Application, it appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and O.P. No.2 with regard to sale and purchase of the land in question.

7. It appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Court below at para-11 in page-4 that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been shown to have been debited in the Account of the O.P. No.2 from the Bank Account of the petitioner.

8. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta is directed to be released on provisional bail for a period of six months from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Shri Digvijay Nath Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-XXVIII, Ranchi /or his Successor Court, in connection with Complaint Case No.2583 of 2018 (T.R. No.475 of 2022) subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be own relative and the petitioner shall deposit a Demand Draft of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of the O.P. No.2 in the office of the learned Registrar General without prejudice to his case and which will be kept by the office of the learned Registrar General till further order of this Court and shall not be handed over to the O.P.No.2 without having any order from this Court.

9. Thus, I.A. No.2344 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 702 of 2024

10. Issue notice to the O.P. No.2 as to why this case be not admitted and disp