JUDGMENT : I.A. No.10263 of 2024 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 09.08.2024 passed by Sri Sanjeev Bhatia, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No.41 of 2023 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant has been partly allowed thereby modifying the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2023 passed by Sri Manoranjan Kumar-II, learned A.C.J.M, Gumla in G.R. Case No.75 of 2015 (Trial No.60 of 2023) by which the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 325 of IPC was upheld and sentence of R.I for 3 years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- was maintained as the learned Appellate Court had set aside conviction of the petitioner under Section 341 of the IPC. Although learned A.C.J.M, Gumla has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 341 and 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and R.I. for three years with the fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. 2. I.A. No.10263 of 2024 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. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State and Mr. Nagendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 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 informant has filed this case in retaliation against this petitioner. It is submitted that during course of trial the victim boy aged about seven (07) years was neither produced before the learned Court below nor the Medical Certificate of C.M.C, Vellor has been marked as the Exhibits. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2024 and he is also ready to compensate him by paying Rs.10,000/- hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Mr. Nagendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Mr. Nagendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court below has given lessor punishment to the petitioner and the petitioner ought to have punished for more than three years. However, the Court has taken lenient view and the sentence of three years R.I of the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of IPC can be maintained. It is submitted that this is a case of assault on deaf and dumb boy aged about seven years and the said victim was treated firstly at local hospital and thereafter he was taken to RIMS, Ranchi and thereafter he was also taken to C.M.C, Vellore for his treatment. It is further submitted that they do not want any compensation from the petitioner rather they desire that the petitioner should remain in custody and hence, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going through the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner had assaulted one Bajrang Kumar, aged around seven years who is said to be deaf and dumb boy and the petitioner apart from causing injury in his right thigh by Iron rod, he is alleged to have trample the fracture leg with his foot and fled away and which is supported by the evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-4. 8. It appears from the impugned judgment by the Trial Court below that though the Doctor had been examined as P.W-6 and injury report was marked as Exhibit-5 in this case, however, the injury report of C.M.C, Vellore was not produced before the Trial Court below rather the same has been produced this Court during course of argument of this case. 9. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2024 i.e. for around six months. 10. Although the Victim boy-Bajrang Kumar was not examined before the learned Court below as a witness but the injury report of the injured Bajrang Kumar and the evidence of the Doctor-P.W-6 reveals that he had treated the injured Bajrang Kumar and he had proved the injury report marked as Exhibit-P-5/PW-6. 11. 10. Although the Victim boy-Bajrang Kumar was not examined before the learned Court below as a witness but the injury report of the injured Bajrang Kumar and the evidence of the Doctor-P.W-6 reveals that he had treated the injured Bajrang Kumar and he had proved the injury report marked as Exhibit-P-5/PW-6. 11. Though the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature but considering the fact that he has remained in custody for around six months and the informant is not desirous of taking any compensation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should pay Rs.95,000/- to the informant by way of compensation for the present for the treatment of the injured Bajrang Kumar. 12. Considering the custody of the petitioner and on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Yogendra Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Manoranjan Kumar-II, learned A.C.J.M, Gumla/ or his Successor Court in connection with G.R. Case No.75 of 2015 (Trial No.60 of 2023), subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be the own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall deposit Rs.95,000/- for the present before the learned Court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds and which may be disbursed to the informant by the learned Court below on filing such an application. 13. Thus, I.A. No.10263 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Rev. No. 1079 of 2024 14. Put up this case in the month of January, 2026. 15. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.