Dhuran Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2822 Jhar

                                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 2064 of 2004
   (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
   30.11.2004, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
   Fast Track Court No.-III, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1999/12
   of 2004.)
                          ---------

1. Dhuran Yadav

2. Ramedo Mandal

3. Gorakh Yadav

4. Bijoy Yadav

5. Mukesh Yadav

6. Puran Yadav

7. Sushil Mandal ..... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Adv For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP

---------

05/Dated: 11th August, 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2004, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1999/12 of 2004, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 147, 324/34 IPC and ordered to be released on probation in view of probation of offender act for keeping peace and good behaviors for 3 years each after entering into a bond to the sum of Rs. 2000/- each with two sureties.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the direction of the learned trial court has been complied in essence, inasmuch as, all the accused were held guilty for the offence under section 147, 324/34 IPC, however, instead of sentencing them the learned trial court ordered to release them on executing bond to a sum of Rs. 2000/-each for keeping peace of 3 years.

Learned counsel further submits that since the probation bond was duly executed by them and no adverse report has come during that period, as such nothing survives

to be adjudicated in this case, as such the case may be disposed of in view of the fact that the direction passed by the learned trial court has been executed by the appellants.

5. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Addl. P.P. does not object the aforesaid contention that no adverse order is on record for the relevant period for 3 years and the appellants have been released on executing their bonds.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that all the appellants surrendered on 15.03.1999 and granted bail on the same day during trial and after conviction all of them were released by executing bond for keeping peace for 3 years, as such there is a proper compliance of the order passed by the learned trial court, hence no interference is required in the impugned judgment.

7. Consequently, the instant application stands disposed of without any interference.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

9. The lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/