Raju Gurjar @ Raj Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16882 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6055/2021

Raju Gurjar @ Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Gurjar, R/o Shiv Colony, Hansi Haryana. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms. Laxmi Devi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

12/11/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

Raju Gurjar @ Raj Kumar seeks a direction to the effect that the

sentence awarded to him vide order dated 04.02.2015 by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4 Bikaner may be ordered

to run concurrently along with conviction orders, the details of

which are produced in the subsequent para.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in

six cases, the application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. has been

allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 but one case

which was decided by the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 could

not be brought to the notice of this Court as the fact of the order

dated 04.02.2015 was not within the knowledge of the petitioner

and his counsel. The cases in which the petitioner was tried and

convicted by the trial court are as under:-

                                         (2 of 4)                     [CRLMP-6055/2021]




S. No     Court name   Case   Date of           Sentence             Appeal
                       No.    Judgment
   1.     ACJM No.3    924/12 01.08.2013        457, 380 IPC 5       Session Judge
          Bikaner                               years SI Penalty     Bikaner appeal
                                                Rs.2,000/- in        no.148/13 decision

default of penalty 18.12.13 sentence 4 of 6 months years

2. ACJM No.3 926/12 3.12.2013 457, 380 IPC 5 Session Judge Bikaner years SI Penalty Bikaner appeal Rs.3,000/- in no.2/14 decision default of penalty 19.6.13 sentence 4 of 6 months years

3. ACJM No.3 990/12 20.03.2014 401, 457, 380 Addl. Session Bikaner IPC 5 years SI Judge No.3 Bikaner Penalty appeal no.17/16 Rs.5,000/- in decision 25.4.16 default of penalty sentence 3 years, 9 of 6 months months

4. ACJM No.3 991/12 05.09.2014 401, 457, 380 Addl. Session Bikaner IPC 5 years SI Judge No.3 Bikaner Penalty appeal no.19/16 Rs.5,000/- in decision 5.5.16 default of penalty sentence 3 years, 9 of 6 months months

5. ACJM No.3 927/12 15.02.2014 457, 380 IPC 4 Bikaner years SI Penalty Rs.5,000/- in default of penalty of 6 months

6. ACJM No.3 967/12 06.02.2014 401, 457, 380, Bikaner 411 IPC 3 years SI Penalty Rs.5,000/- in default of penalty of 6 months

Learned counsel submits that although this Court has

considered the sentences in six different cases to run concurrently,

the sentence passed in this case arising out of conviction order

dated 04.02.2015 should also be allowed to run concurrently

along with other cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph. She

further submits that since the allegation and nature of the case in

all the cases are same and they are almost of the same year,

therefore, if the sentence in the present case is not allowed to run

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6055/2021]

concurrently then the petitioner will have to undergo a further

sentence of five years.

In support of her submission, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court dated

17.02.2017 rendered in the cases of Rajender vs. State of

Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2883/2014; Anil

@ Leelu Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No.3340/2017, decided on 05.05.2018 and

Jitendra @ Gogala Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Petition No.4252/2018 decided on 15.07.2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that in identical

cases, the prayer of the petitioner has been accepted and,

therefore, the sentence in the present case may be allowed to run

concurrently.

Since in the petitioner's case, this Court has already

discussed and deliberated the issue in detail vide judgment dated

01.02.2021, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is

required to be allowed in the same terms.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

present case, offence involved, sentence awarded and period of

detention of the petitioner as on the date and in view of the

decision of this Court rendered in Rajender Vs. State of

Rajsthan (supra), I am of the considered view that ends of

justice would be met if the petitioner is granted benefit of Section

427 Cr.P.C. and the sentence awarded vide order dated

04.02.2015 is directed to run concurrently.

In such circumstances, the present misc. petition filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The substantive sentences awarded

vide order dated 04.02.2015 would run concurrently, however the

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6055/2021]

petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of

Section 427 Cr.P.C. do not permit a direction for concurrent

running of substantive sentences with the sentences running on

default of the payment of fine/compensation. The sentences which

the petitioner is directed to undergo in default of payment of

fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the

petitioner has not paid the fine and compensation as directed by

the trial court, the said sentence would run consecutively.

Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now,

he is not required to undergo default sentences as awarded by the

trial court in default of payment of fine/compensation.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

213-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)