Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 413 (JHR)

Sk. Abdul Sajid v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-13

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. I.A. No. 6254 of 2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 prays for time by submitting that Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel has to argue this case on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. However, this Court is not inclined to grant time on the aforesaid ground. 4. The present Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023 by the Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2023 passed by Sri Tausif Meraj, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar West Singhbhum in connection with Complaint Case No. 41 of 2016 corresponding to T. R. No. 44 of 2023 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.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. 5. I.A. No. 6254 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that allegation of demand of any dowry and torture against the petitioner are false and concocted. It is submitted that one maintenance case is also pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa between the parties and the petitioner hadpaid arrears of maintenance amount of Rs. It is submitted that allegation of demand of any dowry and torture against the petitioner are false and concocted. It is submitted that one maintenance case is also pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa between the parties and the petitioner hadpaid arrears of maintenance amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 15.12.2022 and in support of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photocopy of the order sheet dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in OMC No. 14/2017 (D). It is submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and he is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2024 and has also submitted that the petitioner was also in custody for about two months and ten days during the trial and as such the petitioner is in custody for around one year and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required. 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 harassment and torture. It is submitted that the petitioner has not paid any amount of maintenance since the year 2022 and hence his prayer for bail may be rejected. 9. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that this is a case of matrimonial dispute. 10. It also appears that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and has remained in custody for around ten months after dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023 on 30.09.2023. 11. It also appears that the petitioner had also paidRs. 1,80,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 on 15.12.2022. However, he is in custody under civil imprisonment also from 09.08.2024 for one month as he was unable to pay the maintenance amount to the opposite party no. 2. 12. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody for around one year. 13. 1,80,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 on 15.12.2022. However, he is in custody under civil imprisonment also from 09.08.2024 for one month as he was unable to pay the maintenance amount to the opposite party no. 2. 12. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody for around one year. 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the opposite party no. 2 and considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner namely Sk. Abdul Sajid is directed to be released on provisional bail for a period of six (6) 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 learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar West Singhbhum/ or his Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 41 of 2016 corresponding to T. R. No. 44 of 2023 subject to the condition that one of bailors should be own relative of the petitioner. 14. Thus, I.A. No. 6254 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Rev. No. 280 of 2024 15. 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 learned Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa and both the parties i.e. the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are directed to appear before the learned Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa on 03.03.2025 at 11.30 A.M. Thereafter, the learned Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa shall appoint a Mediator instantly to amicably settle the dispute between both the sides and who shall make an effort for reconciliation between both the sides also and the learned Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa shall submit a report to this Court on or before 09.04.2025. 16. Lower Court Records have already been received. 17. Put up this case on 16.04.2025. 18. Let a copy of this Court be sent to the learned Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa by FAX and also to the learned Court below by FAX for the needful.