The court emphasizes the importance of mediation in matrimonial disputes and grants provisional bail based on the parties' willingness to settle.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 157 of 2025

The present Criminal Revision No. 443 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2023 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -XXI, Ranchi whereby learned Additional Judicial Commissioner -XXI, Ranchi has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2023 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2023 passed by Ms. Dhriti Dhairya, Judicial Magistrate, First Class IV, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 123 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 58 of 2020 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three (3) months for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six (6) months and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act . However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. I. A. No. 157 of 2025 has been filed under Section 438 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is husband and he is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that allegation of demand of any dowry and torture are false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner is working in Private Company i.e. American Express as Executive Manager at Bangalore and the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner had tortured and demanded dowry from the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 has been subjected to dowry and torture and hence prayer for bail may be rejected. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the matter may be referred before JHALSA and opposite party no. 2 wants to settle the dispute with the petitioner.

7. It appears that the petitioner is husband and he is working in Private Company i.e. American Express as Executive Manager at Bangalore.

8. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025.

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner namely Nikesh Kumar Jha is directed to be released on provisional bail for a period of four months from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ms. Dhriti Dhairya, Judicial Magistrate, First Class IV, Ranchi or her Successor Court in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 123 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 58 of 2020 subject to the condition that one of bailor should be close relative of the petitioner.

10. Thus, I. A. No. 157 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Cr. Rev. No. 443 of 2024

11. Considering the fact that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and hence, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is referred to mediation before the JHALSA and both the parties i.e. the petitioner and opposite p