Jaikaran vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23882)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jaikaran vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23882) on 24 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:23882]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3474/2024

Jaikaran S/o Shri Sant Lal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. (At Present
Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Suresh Nehra
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 24/05/2024

1. The instant misc petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner in the matter of judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.2/2018 as well as in connection with the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Case No.243/2012.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court.

3. It is emanating from the material available on record that after full-fledged trial in Criminal Case No.243/2012, vide judgment dated 20.04.2018 the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under :-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:18 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:23882] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3474/2024] Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence convicted Section 341 of the IPC 1 month's S.I. alongwtih a fine of 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 7 days' S.I. Section 323/34 of the 1 year's S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and IPC in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' S.I. Section 325/34 of the 3 years' S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and IPC in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months' S.I. He preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.2/2018 in which vide judgment dated 08.04.2019, learned Court of Appeal though maintained the conviction but modified the order of sentence to the effect that the benefit of probation was extended to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. At the same time, under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings and to furnish the bonds under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was supposed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of the said judgment. But he failed to do so, and therefore, the warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Magistrate. In pursuance of the warrant of arrest, he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 06.05.2024 and ofcourse he was having no other option but to send him to jail to suffer the remaining part of the sentence. As such no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Taking from another angle, it is thought that since the petitioner is a poor person and for the reason of miscommunication, he failed to deposit the amount of (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:18 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23882] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3474/2024] compensation and cost of proceedings before the trial Court in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.

5. Thus, taking a humanitarian approach and leniency towards him owing to his financial condition, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the misc. petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith provided he furnishes bail bonds before the learned Magistrate alongwith cost of Rs.1000/- as directed by the learned Court of Appeal and he shall also deposit Rs.2000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Hanumangarh. Thus, a total of Rs.3000/- shall be paid on behalf of the petitioner alongwith the bail bonds.

6. The stay petition also stands dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 673-Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:38:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)