JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ARUN RAJAK V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

RANCHI, India, Jan. 14 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 15:

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been sentenced by the judgment dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi arising out of Complaint Case No.846 of 2016 under section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years SI with a fine of Rs.5000/- and further one month SI upon default under section 498A IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has challenged the same before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr.Appeal No.333 of 2024 by the judgment dated 03.10.2024, and the learned Judicial Commissioner has rejected the said appeal. He next submits that after the judgment in the appeal the petitioner has surrendered before the learned court on 01.09.2025 and has remained in custody for three months and 13 days. He next submits that false allegation of miscarriage against the petitioner has been made by the wife. He then submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Chhadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 OnLine SC 1094 it has been held that unless the demand of dowry under section 498A of the IPC followed by certain act is there, section 498A IPC will not sustain. He then submits that the instant criminal revision petition is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of this criminal revision petition of being taken recently. He next submits in view of that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail, during pendency of the instant revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State through Video Conferencing opposes the prayer and submits that concurrent findings of two learned courts are there.

3. Considering that the matter is arising out of section 498A IPC and the petitioner was convicted under section 498A IPC and there is no conviction under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and prima facie, the case of the petitioner comes in light of the judgment in the case of Rajesh Chaddha (supra) and further in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein at paragraph no.57 it has been held that: 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqIUfCti%2BS8FU%2BrPQlYosmuAdbDOdV3YXvFt5RmXww4Nw&caseno=Cr.Rev./913/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010397142024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.