Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 887 (JHR)

Gauri Lal Kamar v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-17

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : 1. It appears from the office note dated 12.03.2025 that neither S/R nor A/D or undelievered cover received as yet. 2. It appears vide order dated 21.02.2025 notice was issued upon the O.P No. 2 in the matter of admission as well as limitation. However, the O.P No.2 has not appeared till date. I.A No. 846 of 2025 1. I.A. No. 846 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 704 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application. 2. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned counsel for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was suffering from financial crises and he is in custody since 24.10.2024 and hence, the delay of 704 days may be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the State raised objection and submitted that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that although, the delay has not been properly explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present I.A No. 846 of 2025.However, considering the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2024, since then he was in custody and as such, the delay of 704 days in filing this Criminal Revision Application is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- before the Jharkhand High Court Advocate Clerk Association and the learned counsel for the petitioner file receipt within 15 days from today by filing necessary affidavit. 6. Thus, I.A No. 846 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 139 of 2025 7. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2019 by Sri Rajesh Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed thereby, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 21.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with C.P Case No. 403/11, T.R No. 1697/18 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 (01) year and to pay the fine of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. 8. 2.50 Lakhs. 8. I.A No. 13114 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Revision Application. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the complaint filed against the petitioner was premature and there is no proof of service of notice upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the cheque issued by the petitioner has been received by the O.P No. 2 and the petitioner is a Government servant.It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner was in custody from 25.07.2022 to 09.09.2022 i.e for about one and half months. Thereafter, on 24.10.2022 he was arrested and since then, he is in custody and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P No. 2 and for which, he had issued a cheque which was dishonored with remarks “insufficient funds”. 12. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that this is a case of money lending of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the O.P No. 2 to the petitioner. 13. It appears from the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court at Paragraph-11 that the O.P No. 2, while being examined as CW-3, had admitted to have filed several cases of cheque bounce against one Jai Narayan Gope, Kamal Nishad Choudhary, Reena Devi, Nakul Singh and Santosh Kumar Singh respectively, although, he does not do the work of money lending. 14. It also appears that the O.P No. 2 is involved in illegal business of money lending. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Gauri Lal Kamar is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two surities of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with C.P Case No. 403 of 2011, T.R No. 1697 of 2018. 16. Thus, I.A No. 13114 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. 17. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two surities of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with C.P Case No. 403 of 2011, T.R No. 1697 of 2018. 16. Thus, I.A No. 13114 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. 17. Issue fresh notice upon O.P No. 2 on his present and correct address and for which, requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed within two weeks from today. 18. Call for the legible scanned copy of the Lower Court Records as well as the records of learned Appellate Court. 19. Put up this case in the month of July, 2025 under the heading “For Admission.”