Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikaran vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23882) on 24 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:23882]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3474/2024
Jaikaran S/o Shri Sant Lal, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Gorkhana, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. (At Present
Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Nehra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
24/05/2024
1. The instant misc petition has been preferred on behalf of the
accused petitioner in the matter of judgment dated 08.04.2019
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.2/2018 as well as in
connection with the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Case
No.243/2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court.
3. It is emanating from the material available on record that
after full-fledged trial in Criminal Case No.243/2012, vide
judgment dated 20.04.2018 the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced as under :-
[2024:RJ-JD:23882] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3474/2024]
Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence
convicted
Section 341 of the IPC 1 month's S.I. alongwtih a fine of 500/- and in
default of payment of fine, further to undergo 7
days' S.I.
Section 323/34 of the 1 year's S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and
IPC in default of payment of fine, further to
undergo 3 months' S.I.
Section 325/34 of the 3 years' S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and
IPC in default of payment of fine, further to
undergo 6 months' S.I.
He preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.2/2018 in
which vide judgment dated 08.04.2019, learned Court of Appeal
though maintained the conviction but modified the order of
sentence to the effect that the benefit of probation was extended
to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
At the same time, under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation
and cost of proceedings and to furnish the bonds under Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was supposed to deposit the
amount within a period of one month from the date of the said
judgment. But he failed to do so, and therefore, the warrant of
arrest was issued by the learned Magistrate. In pursuance of the
warrant of arrest, he was produced before the learned Magistrate
on 06.05.2024 and ofcourse he was having no other option but to
send him to jail to suffer the remaining part of the sentence. As
such no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Taking from another angle, it is thought that since the
petitioner is a poor person and for the reason of
miscommunication, he failed to deposit the amount of
[2024:RJ-JD:23882] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3474/2024]
compensation and cost of proceedings before the trial Court in
pursuance of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
5. Thus, taking a humanitarian approach and leniency towards
him owing to his financial condition, it is deemed appropriate to
dispose of the misc. petition with a direction that the petitioner
shall be released from custody forthwith provided he furnishes bail
bonds before the learned Magistrate alongwith cost of Rs.1000/-
as directed by the learned Court of Appeal and he shall also
deposit Rs.2000/- with the District Legal Services Authority,
Hanumangarh. Thus, a total of Rs.3000/- shall be paid on behalf
of the petitioner alongwith the bail bonds.
6. The stay petition also stands dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
673-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
