Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 889 of 2009
-------
Rajesh Sao ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P
--------
03/ Dated 22.03.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the legality, correctness and proprietary of
the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by Smt. Premlata Tripathy, learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribag in connection with G.R. Case No.835 of 1994,
whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the bond
under the Provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C filed by him, in compliance of the
Judgment dated 21.08.2002 passed by Shree S.M.Alam, learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No.105 of 1995, whereby and
wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag partly allowed the
appeal of the petitioner, filed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 07.07.1995 passed by Sri A.K.Gupta, learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Hazaribag in Patratu P.S Case No.114 (4) of 1994 corresponding to
G.R No.835 of 1994, holding the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections
25 (1) (B) & 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year
for each of the aforesaid offences. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
Learned Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed that the
petitioner be released on his furnishing bond of Rs.2,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount, stating that he will maintain peace and good behavior for the period
of one year, failing which, they will be called upon to receive sentence. The bond
was ordered to be executed itself within two months from the date of judgment.
As stated above, the Judgment in Cr. Appeal No.105 of 1995 was passed on
21.08.2002, whereas the petitioner surrendered before the Court of Smt. Premlata
Tripathy, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hazaribag on 10.09.2009, i.e., after
seven years. The Learned Magistrate refused to accept the bond executed by the
petitioner as there was clear-cut violation of the direction given in the Criminal
Appeal that the bond was to be executed within two months from the date of
judgment, failing which, the petitioner will undergo S.I for one year. The learned
Judicial Magistrate could not have gone outside the purview of the direction given
in Cr. Appeal No.105 of 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VII, Hazaribag by accepting the bond executed after seven years.
I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Court below.
However, the petitioner was taken into custody and he was released on bail during
the pendency of this Criminal Revision by order dated 09.11.2009.
Mr. Robin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has remained in jail for about five months including his custody during
the trial and during the pendency of this application before he was released on
bail. The offence alleged is said to have taken place on 28.04.1994, i.e., more than
30 years have elapsed.
Considering the fact, the sentence of one year imposed upon the petitioner
in default of executing the bond within two months from the date of judgment
passed by the learned Appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
This revision application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
