Jharkhand High Court
Govind Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 1 July, 2015
Author: Ravi Nath Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 138 of 2015
1. Sanjay Manjhi
2. Prakash Manjhi
3. Bisan Manjhi .... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary
For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P.
01.07.2015This appeal is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice.
Call for the lower court record.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 ( Part II ) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of rupees 2000/ with default clause. He has also been convicted under section 323/334 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred with default clause.
It is further submitted that appellants no. 2 and 3 have been convicted under section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months with fine of rupees five hundred each with default clause. It is also submitted that appellant no.1 has remained in jail custody for almost three years which is almost half of the sentenced imposed upon him, whereas appellants no. 2 and 3 have undergone sentence for more than the period of sentence imposed and have already been released by the learned court below on deposit of the fine amount and therefore appellant no.1 deserves to be enlarged on bail .
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the period in custody, during the pendency of this appeal, the above named appellant no. 1 ( Sanjay Manjhi ) is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3 rd Addl. Sessions Judge Deoghar, in connection with. S.C No. 23 of 2006 arising out of Sarwan (Sonaraithari) PS case No. 93 of 2005 ( GR No. 559 of 2005) subject to the deposit of fine amount as imposed by the court below.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 687 of 2015 Rahul Gope .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Gautam Kumar For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 The sole petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) against the order dated 21.4.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhnhum at Chaibasa 28 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chaibasa, by order dated 19.3.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 762 of 2014 has been affirmed .
The prosecution case as it appears from the record relates to the offences under section 458/302 IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the report of the probation officer submitted that even though the probation officer has made recommendation to release the petitioner and hand over his custody to his father and mother, the learned court below rejected the prayer holding that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, he will come in association of unknown and known criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 9.12.2014 and the father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner if he is released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P opposed the prayer.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsels, the period in custody and the
undertaking given by the father of the petitioner that he will take care of his son and provide proper guidance, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chaibasa in Chaibasa (M) PS Case No. 157 of 2014 on the condition that the father of the petitioner shall produce the petitioner before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and that one of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner.
With the above observation, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 19.3.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chaibasa in Chaibasa (M) PS Case No.157 of 2014 (GR No. 762 of 2014) and the judgment dated 21.4.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2015 are hereby set aside.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 688 of 2015 Akhilesh Paswan @ Akhilesh Kumar Paswan @ Akhlesh Paswan @ Akhlesh Kumar Paswan .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 The sole petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) against the judgment dated 4.6.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Dalonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau, at Daltonganj, by order dated 8.4.2015 passed in Bishrampur PS Case No. 72 of 2014 has been affirmed .
The prosecution case as it appears from the record relates to the offences under section 302/341 IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the report of the probation officer submitted that even though the probation officer has made recommendation to release the petitioner and hand over his custody to his father and mother, the learned court below rejected the prayer holding that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, he will come in association of unknown and known criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner if he is released on bail. The petitioner is in jail custody from 29.7.2014 though Section 12 of the Act clearly mandates that the grant of bail to a juvenile is a rule and rejection is exception.
Learned Addl. P.P opposed the prayer.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsels, the period in custody and the
undertaking given by the father of the petitioner that he will take care of his son and provide proper guidance, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj in Bishrampur PS Case No. 72 of 2014 (GR No. 1385 of 2014) on the condition that the father of the petitioner shall produce the petitioner before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case till the conclusion of the inquiry and that one of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner.
With the above observation, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 8.4.2015
passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Bishrampur PS Case No. 72 of 2014 (GR No. 1385 of 2014) and the judgment dated 4.6.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2015 are, hereby, set aside.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 366 of 2015 Nizam Ansari .... Petitioner Versus Amna Khatoon .... Opposite Party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Mukesh Mr Sinha (No2) For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Put up this case on 13.7.2015, as prayed for.
Till then interim relief granted vide order dated 27.4.2015 shall continue.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 674 of 2013
1. Sandip Kumar @ Sandip Vishwakarma
2. Manohar Sharma @ Manohar Vishwakarma .. Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. Tejo Mistry For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this revision application.
This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 146 of 2015 Ashwini Kumar Mahto .. .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and another .... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 It appears from the office note dated 30.6.2015 that the case diary called for by order dated 15.6.2015 has not yet been received.
Call for an explanation from the court concerned so as to reach this Court within two weeks as to why the direction given by order dated 15.6.2015 has not been complied with.
Put up this case on 21.7.2015.
Till then, interim order passed on 15.6.2015 shall continue. Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 325 of 2015 Manoj Kumar Sharma .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Put up this case on 08.7.2015, as prayed for.
Till then interim order passed on
12.5.2015 shall continue.
Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the court concerned though FAX at the cost of the petitioner as prayed for.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 295 of 2015 Govind Pandey .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and six others .... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Issue notice to opposite parties 2 to 7 for which requisites etc under registered cover with A/d as well as ordinary process must be filed within a week, failing which this revision application as against them shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Put up this case on 03.08.2015.
Till then, further proceedings as against the petitioner in connection with ST No. 155 of 2013 / ST No. 135 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Judicial Commissioner IV, Ranchi, shall remain stayed.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 539 of 2015 Chintaman Saw @ Chitto Saw .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and anr .... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 for which requisites etc under registered cover with A/d as well as ordinary process must be filed within a week, failing which this revision application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Put up this case on 03.08.2015.
Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Maintenance Case No. 2 of 1986 pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 286 of 2015 with Cr. Revision No. 561 of 2015 with Cr. Revision No. 562 of 2015 Praveen Kumar @ Munna Singh( Cr. Revision 286/2015) Pramod Singh ( Cr. Revison No. 562 of 2015) Suresh Kumar Gupta Paras Nath Rai @ Paras Nath Singh @ P.N.Rai Amod Singh ( Cr. Revision No. 561 of 2015) .... Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr.Pandey Neeraj Rai For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that these revision applications have been preferred against the order dated 19.2.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ghatshila in connection with Jaduguda PS case No. 8 of 2012 ( G.R. Case No. 08 of 2012) by which the petition(s) filed by the petitioners under section 239 for their discharge has been rejected.
Learned counsel further submitted that by order dated 6.5.2015 passed in Cr. Revision No. 286 of 2015, case diary was called for from the court concerned, but as the same was not received, direction was given to put up this case on 23.6.2015 but even by that date, case diary was not available in court. Hence, the prayer is that the interim relief granted by order dated 6.5.2015 may be directed to continue. It appears that after the prayer of the counsel, the interim relief granted by order dated 06.05.2015 was directed to continue till next date but today learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in fact, by aforesaid order dated 6.5.2015, direction was given not to take any coercive step against the petitioner(s), and on the last date, prayer was to stay further proceedings pending in the court below, but perhaps, due to inadvertence, it was wrongly recorded in the order dated 23.6.2015 that interim relief(s) granted earlier shall continue.
Hence, in the circumstances stated above, further proceedings in connection with Jaduguda PS case No. 8 of 2012 ( G.R. Case No. 08 of 2012) pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ghatshila is hereby stayed till next date and the order dated 23.6.2015 stands modified to that extent only.
Put up these cases on 15.7.2015 in terms of the order dated 23.6.2015.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioners, as prayed for.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 679 of 2011 Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Buchi Devi and State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. T.Kabiraj For the State : Addl.P.P. For opposite party no. 1 : Anand Kumar Pandey 01.07.2015 Heard .
This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Daltonganj, in Misc. Case. No. 37 F of 2009 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the opposite party no. 1 under section 125 Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay rupees five thousand per month to the opposite party no. 1 for her maintenance.
It appears from the record that at the instance of the present opposite party no.1, the petition was filed under section 25 Cr PC with the prayer that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and after her marriage she went to her in laws' house and from their wed lock, a daughter was born who is about three years of age and further case is that thereafter she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty because of non fulfilment of demand of dowry by the petitioner and because of non fulfilment, she was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house. A notice was issued to the petitioner who preferred not to file show cause in the court below inspite of several opportunities. Thereafter, opposite party no. 1 adduced evidence and the learned court below after appreciating those evidence allowed the petition as indicated above.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had appeared in the court below, but the learned court below proceeded ex parte against this petitioner and passed the order behind the back of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there was no justification to fix maintenance at rupees five thousand per month .
Contrary to the above submission, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner and there is absolutely nothing on record to interfere with the order impugned in this application.
I have gone through the impugned order and find that the petitioner had appeared in the court below after service of notice, but preferred not to file his show cause inspite of several opportunities provided to him and thereafter the court below passed the ex parte order against the petitioner and after considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of several vehicles and landed properties passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay rupees five thousand per month to the opposite party no.1 as well as her minor daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in this application.
This revision application is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed accordingly.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. ........... of 201 ....... .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 This revision application is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice.
Call for the lower court record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section ........... of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and was remanded to Special Home. On appeal preferred against the said order, the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned court below. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in custody since .............. and hence he deserves to be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the period in custody, during the pendency of this revision application, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ................. in connection with.......................
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. ........ of 201 ................. .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 The sole petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) against the order dated 7.3.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, by order dated 30.1.2014 passed in Ghaghra PS Case No. 30. of 2013 has been affirmed .
The prosecution case as it appears from the record relates to the offences under section 302/34 IPC.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying Upon the report of the probation officer submitted that even though the probation officer has made recommendation to release the petitioner and hand over his custody to his father and mother, the learned court below rejected the prayer holding that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, he will come in association of unknown and known criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 3.5.2013 and the mother of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner if he is released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P opposed the prayer.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsels, the period in custody and the
undertaking given by the father of the petitioner that he will take care of his son and provide proper guidance, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, in Ghaghra PS Case No. 30 of 2013 ( GR No. 404 of 2013 ) on the condition that the mother of the petitioner shall produce the petitioner before the court below on each and every date fixed in the case and that one of the bailors must be the mother of the petitioner.
With the above observation, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, in Ghaghra PS Case No. 30. of 2013 and the judgment dated 7.3.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2014 are hereby set aside.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. .......of 2014 Ajay Lal .... Petitioner Versus
1. State of Jharkhand ... Opposite party Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr. For the opp. party/ respondent : Addl.P.P. 01.07.2015 Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this revision application.
This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. ......... of 2015 .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr Ranjan Kumar Singh For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 23.06.2015 Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 for which requisites etc under registered cover with A/d as well as ordinary process must be filed within a week, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Put up this case on 22.7.2015.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 425 of 2014 Sarita Devi .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and another ... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr Ravi Prakash For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 22.06.2015 Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 for which requisites etc under registered cover with A/d as well as ordinary process must be filed within a week, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Call for the lower court record from the court concerned and put up this case on 21.7.2015.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 382 of 2013 Pankaj Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and another ... Opposite Parties Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr . Nilesh Kumar For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 22.06.2015 By order dated 14.5.2015, this case was directed to be listed along with the record of Cr. M.P. No. 1537 of 2006 which has already been admitted for final hearing on 29.4.2009.
It appears that wrongly interpreting the said direction, the office has listed Cr. M. P No. 1537 of 2006 for admission.
Put up this case on 14.7.2015, as prayed for.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. ..........of 201 ....... .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 23.06.2015 This revision application is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice.
Call for the lower court record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with other accused namely ...................... has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections .......................of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ............... under section ............ IPC, ................ On appeal preferred against the said order, the appellate court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section ............ IPC, but affirmed the conviction and sentence under other sections of the Indian Penal Code. ................ Even then the petitioner is in custody since ............. Hence, he deserves to be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the period in custody, during the pendency of this revision application, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ................... in connection with .................
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. ..........of 201 ....... .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the petitioner/ appellant (s): Mr For the opp. party/ respondents : Addl.P.P. 23.06.2015 This revision application is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice.
Call for the lower court record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with other accused namely ...................... has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections .......................of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ............... under section ............ IPC, ................ On appeal preferred against the said order, the appellate court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section ............ IPC, but affirmed the conviction and sentence under other sections of the Indian Penal Code. ................ Even then the petitioner is in custody since ............. Hence, he deserves to be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no serious objection.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the period in custody, during the pendency of this revision application, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ................... in connection with .................
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. )