Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Manan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4095 Jhar

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4095 Jhar
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2022

Jharkhand High Court
Manan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cr. Revision No. 1027 of 2008
                          ---------
     Manan Ansari.                                  ..... Petitioner
                           Versus

The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pd., Adv.

     For the State             : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
                                      ---------

04/Dated: 11th October, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 18.06.2008, passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Cr. Appeal No. 88 of 2004;

whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 22.05.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 1102 of 1995,

corresponding to T.R. No. 743 of 2004; whereby the petitioner

was convicted under sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and was

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years which was later modified

by learned Appellate court to 2 years for each of the offence

and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has

been affirmed and appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed

with modification in sentence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confines his

argument on the question of sentence on the ground that the

instant case is of the year 1995 and about 27 years have

elapsed since then and the petitioner must have suffered the

mental agony for ongoing litigation. He further submits that

the petitioner remained in custody for considerable period and

has never misused the privilege of bail and he is not habitual

offender and the only earing member of his family, as such

some leniency may be granted by this Court and sentence

may be modified to period already undergone.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and as

such, no interference is required.

5. After going through the impugned judgments including

the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere

with the finding of the courts below and as such the

judgments of conviction passed by the learned trial court and

upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent

from record that the incident is of the year 1995 and 27 years

have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors

of litigation for the last 27 years. The petitioner remained in

custody for about 439 days and is middle aged person and

also the sole earing member of his family and sending him

back to prison at this stage will hamper the entire family.

Further, it is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused

the privilege of bail. In addition, the incident does not reflect

any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental

depravity.

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no

fruitful purpose would be served by sending the

petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice

would be sufficed if the sentence is modified to period already

undergone.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified

to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for

the period already undergone.

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court

and upheld by the learned appellate Court is hereby modified

to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for

the period already undergone.

10. With the aforesaid observations, and modification in

sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

disposed of.

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond.

12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts

below and also to the petitioner through the officer- in-charge

of concerned police station.

13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter