Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh @ Bablu vs State Of Raj on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 386/1998
Rajesh @ Bablu
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra singh Bhati
Mr. SD Chavariya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. As per the report dated 31.03.2022, petitioner No.2-Ashok
has already died. Thus, the present petition to the extent of
petitioner no.2 stands abated.
3. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the matter
pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1992 and the
present revision has been pending since 1998.
4. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.1998 the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Appeal
Case No.19/97 convicted the petitioner and affirmed the judgment
dated 23.07.1997 for the offence under Section 324 & 326 of IPC
and the petitioners have been sentenced him to undergo six
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:46 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLR-386/1998]
months R.I. & 03 years' R.I. along with a fine of Rs.5000/- default
in payment of which he was to further undergo three months of
S.I. respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the
accused petitioner do not have any criminal antecedents to his
discredit.
6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits
that the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 25.08.1998
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application (Suspension of
Sentence) No.203/1998, and thus, he is on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner however, makes a
limited prayer that the accused-appellant(s) may be granted
benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
"4. Power of court to release certain offenders on
probation of good conduct.--
(1) When any person is found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and the court by which the person
is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender, it is
expedient to release him on probation of good conduct,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, the court may, instead
of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct
that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or
without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during such period, not exceeding three
years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:46 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLR-386/1998]
that the court shall not direct such release of an
offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his
surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the court exercises
jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live
during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the
court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of
the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3)...
(4)...
(5)... "
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal and submits that looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order
passed by the learned court below, the accused-petitioner is not
entitled for any indulgence by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
10. In Arvind Mohan Sinha Vs. Amulya Kumar Biswas
(1974) 4 SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The Probation of Offenders Act is a reformative
measure and its object is to reclaim amateur offenders
who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, can be
usefully rehabilitated in society.
In recalcitrant cases, punishment has to be deterrent so
that others similarly minded may warn themselves of the
hazards of taking to a career of crime. But the novice
who strays into the path of crime ought, in the
interest of society, be treated as being socially sick.
Crimes are not always rooted in criminal tendencies
and their origin may lie in psychological factors
induced by hunger, want and poverty. The Probation
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:46 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLR-386/1998]
of Offenders act recognises the importance of
environmental influence in the commission of
crimes and prescribes a remedy whereby the
offender can be reformed and rehabilitated in
society."
10.1 In Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2022 Raj 945, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-
"Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
nature of offence is one of the major-criteria for
determining whether benefit of this provision should be
given to the concerned offender or not. His age would be
another relevant factor and the circumstance in which the
offence was committed may be 3rd important
consideration... "
10.2 In Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2017) 2 SCC
198, while reiterating the ratio decidendi laid down in Dalbir
Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:
"... The Court has further opined that though the
discretion as been vested in the court to decide when
and how the court should form such opinion, yet the
provision itself provides sufficient indication that
releasing the convicted person on probation of good
conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient..."
11. This Court observes that there is no material on record that
the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents. Thus, the
accused-petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.
11.1 Thus, this Court, after taking into due consideration the
legislative intent of the Act and the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Hashim (supra) & Brij Lal
(Downloaded on 26/04/2022 at 08:37:46 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLR-386/1998]
(supra), deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of the Act to
the accused-petitioner.
12. Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the conviction of the present accused-petitioner No.1
for the offence under Section Section 324 & 326 of IPC as
recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned judgment,
this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said
judgment, and directs that the appellant(s) shall be released on
probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and
good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the
offence. The petitioner No.1 is on bail. He need not surrender. His
bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications
stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back
forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
76-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
