logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 006 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : Cr. Revision No. 883 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Parties : Khemlal Sao Versus The State of Jharkhand
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rajneesh Vardhan, APP.
Date of Judgment : 15-12-2025
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Section 498A -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- section 498A of IPC
- Section 436-A of the Code

2. Catch Words:
- bail
- regular bail
- criminal revision
- delay
- sentence modification
- release on bail

3. Summary:
The petitioner was convicted under section 498A IPC and sentenced to two years six months’ rigorous imprisonment, later modified to one year six months by the appellate court. He filed I.A. No.12271 of 2025 seeking regular bail after spending about three and a half months in custody. The counsel highlighted a sale deed executed by the petitioner’s father in favor of the informant and argued that the delay in taking up the revision warrants bail. Citing *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* (2022) 10 SCC 51, the court noted that delay coupled with benefits under Section 436‑A of the Code favors bail. Accordingly, the court directed release on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties. The application was allowed and disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in G.R. No.541 of 2011, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and six months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 498A of IPC. He next submits that the said judgment was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in criminal appeal No.03 of 2018 and by the Judgment dated 08.05.2025, the learned appellate court has been pleased to modify the sentence for one year and six months and rest of the judgment of the learned trial court has been kept intact.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the I.A. No.12271 of 2025 has been filed for regular bail He submits that the petitioner has surrendered before the learned court on 27.08.2025 and has remained in custody about 3 and ½ months. He next submits that even the father of the petitioner has executed the sale deed in favour of the informant, which was marked as Annexure-A, in spite of that, false case has been lodged by the informant against this petitioner and the petitioner happened to be husband. He next submits that there is no likelihood of taking up this criminal revision recently as the criminal revision is of year 2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there are concurrent findings of the two courts, however, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence from 2 years and six months to 1 year and six months.

5. In view of the above and considering the nature of the case and it has been pointed out by way of Annexure-A, that the sale deed has been executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the informant, in spite of that she has lodged the case. The petitioner has remained in custody for about three and half months and the learned appellate court has modified the period of sentence to one year and six months. This revision is not likelihood to be taken up in recently as the criminal revision is of the year 2025.

6. In the case of “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 in para 57 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

                  “57. Thus, we hold that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436-A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail.”

7. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.02 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.541 of 2011.

8. I.A. I.A. No.12271 of 2025 allowed and disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal