ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 27.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2018 by Sri Kaushal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-Gumla by which learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribag has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 271 of 2016, T.R. No. 389 of 2018 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay the fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- including cheque amount (three lacs) as compensation. 2. I.A. No. 522 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application . 3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner could not complied with the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court by depositing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner is not in position to pay the amount Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner wants to contest the case on merit. However, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of Demand Draft in the name of O.P. No. 2 for the present in compliance of the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 11.10.2022 till date. 6 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court and hence, the prayer of the bail of the petitioner may be rejected.However the petitioner may get deposited the amount of Rs. 6 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court and hence, the prayer of the bail of the petitioner may be rejected.However the petitioner may get deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned Court below. 7. Perused the F.I.R and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It appears that initially the petitioner was granted Provisional Bail by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2022 as the earlier learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner is ready to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 at the time of furnishing bail bonds and also ready to pay remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 within one year.It also appears that the petitioner had shown willingness to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 within one year but the petitioner has not complied with the said order. 9 . It appears that the petitioner was granted Provisional Bail for six (06) months vide order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court . 10. However, after being released from Jail, the petitioner could not deposit Rs. 50,000/- and had not take any step. 11. It also appears that vide order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court the instant Criminal Revision No. 110 of 2022 was dismissed because none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 12. Thereafter the above Criminal Revision was dismissed for default vide order dated 17.02.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary). Thereafter this Criminal Revision is restored vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Cr.M.P. No. 3372 of 2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) which was subsequently rectified and the date of order is directed to be read as “3 rd January 2025” instead of “3 rd January 2024” vide order dated 08.01.2025. 13. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024. 14. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- before this Court . However the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is not willing to accept the same. 15. 13. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024. 14. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- before this Court . However the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is not willing to accept the same. 15. It appears that the petitioner is unable to pay the amount in question but he remained in custody for around three (03) months and earlier also is remained in custody for around one month 16. Considering the facts in the circumstances of the case and considering the period of custody of the petitioner, namely Ganesh Ram Paswan is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class Hazaribagh or His Successor Court in Complaint Case No. 271 of 2016 , T.R. No. 389 of 2018 subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the O.P. No. 2 at the time of furnish the bail bonds and one of the bailors should be the relative of the petitioner. 17. The learned Trial Court is directed to hand over the Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 on filing proper application by the O.P. No. 2 in presence of learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, if such an application is filed. 18 . Thus, I.A. No. 522 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of. Cr. Rev. No. 110 of 2022 19. Put up this case on 12.06.2025 for “Admission.”