Jharkhand High Court
Somar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1505 of 2016
1. Somar Yadav
2. Mahendra Yadav
3. Ganesh Yadav
(all sons of Late Sito Yadav)
4. Tukan Yadav
5. Santosh Yadav
(All sons of Vijay Yadav)
6. Chanda Devi @ Chandni Devi, w/o Santosh Yadav
7. Marni Devi w/o Vijay Yadav
All resident of Koldiha No.20, P.O. - Koldia, P.S. Giridih (T),
District - Giridih ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ramdhani Sao s/o Late Jagdish Sao
3. Priyanka Devi w/o Ramdhani Sao
Opposite parties no.2 and 3 both resident of Koldiha, P.O. Giridih,
P.S. Girdih (T), District - Girdih.
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
---
05/24.09.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
09.08.2016 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih, in
Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2015, whereby the criminal appeal has been
dismissed. By virtue of order dated 08.08.2015, passed by learned
Executive Magistrate, Giridih in Case No.129/14, T.R. No.133 of
2014, the petitioners were directed to execute a bond of Rs.5000/-
with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace in the
locality for a period of one year from the date of the order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court whereby the
extension of the period by six months has been sustained, is not in
accordance with the law as the order of extension was passed after
expiry of the period and the order has been sustained on the ground
that the petition was filed within time.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a
judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1972) 2 SCC
532 and has referred to paragraph 7 thereof to submit that otherwise
also, much time has elapsed and there is no further report with regard
to breach of peace and the bond was to be furnished only for a period
of one year, therefore, the petitioners be discharged from their liability
to furnish any bond.
5. The learned counsel for the State has also referred to the order
passed by the Executive Magistrate and has submitted that this case
has become infructuous for all practical purposes as the period has
already elapsed, and he has no objection if this Court passes an order
discharging the petitioners of their liability to furnish the bond.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, as back
as on 08.08.2015 directing the petitioners to furnish bond for a period
of one year. Much time has elapsed and the learned counsel for the
State has also not brought anything on record to show any breach of
peace. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (1972) 2 SCC 532 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
ultimately discharged the petitioners from filing the bond considering
the lapse of about 13 years. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court also finds that no material has been brought
on record to show continuation of breach of peace and the period for
which the bond was to be furnished has already expired, therefore the
petitioners are discharged from their liability to furnish bond.
7. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
