[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhakar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5777) on 2 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 196/2026
Bhakar Ram S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Raika
Bagh,riyabadi, Police Station Padukalla, District Nagaur. (At
Present Lodged At District Jail Nagaur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kshitij Vyas for
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
02/02/2026
1. The instant appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated
02.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in
Sessions Case No.05/2024, whereby the learned judge convicted
the appellant for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment to further undergo 1 month SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal appeal are that complainant Iqbal
Mohd. Lodged a report at police station Merta and stating that he
is posted as Assistant Post Master at Merta, he came at Merta
from his village and parked his motor cycle at office parking and
after completing his duty he return back at village, at that time his
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5777] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-196/2026]
vehicle was not found. The police registered FIR No.348/2023
under Section 379 of IPC and after usual investigation filed the
charge-sheet under Section 379, 411 & 413 of IPC against the
appellant before trial court.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the appellant
for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in
order to prove the offences, examined as many as 13 witnesses
and exhibited some documents. The accused, upon being
confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement
under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be
innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and
the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of
the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for the
offence as aforesaid.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he will not assail
conviction of the appellant and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of granting the benefit of probation to the
appellant. The appellant is sole earner of the family and has been
acquitted from charges under Section 411 & 413 of IPC. The
appellant shall be reformed if he is given a chance. With these
submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,
the appellant may be given the benefit of probation.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5777] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-196/2026]
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the
appellant has remained behind the bars for some time and that it
was the first criminal case registered against the appellant.
7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after
perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that :
(1) The appellant is not a habitual offender and there is nothing
on record to showing his conviction in any other criminal case;
(2) The case involves the offences under Sections 379 of the
IPC.
(5) There is no report regarding any untoward behaviour of the
appellant during the period of bail.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, this
court is of the considered opinion that a reformative approach
should be adopted in the present case. Thus, this court while
taking lenient view towards appellant, thinks it fit that instead of
sentencing him at once to any punishment, he should be be
released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5777] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-196/2026]
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of
conviction dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.05/2024 is affirmed. However,
the order of sentence stands modified in the manner that the
appellant is granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of the Offenders Act upon his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a
period of two years with an undertaking to appear and receive
sentence as and when called upon by the court, in case of default
of any term and condition of the probation bond and to keep
peace and be of good behaviour during such period of two years
from the date of his entering into such bond. The bonds be
furnished before the learned trial Court. The amount of fine as
imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant
within a period of 90 days from the date of this order. The
appellant is on bail. He shall be released on probation forthwith, if
not wanted in any other case, upon satisfying the aforementioned
requirements.
11. The application seeking suspension of sentence and all other
pending applications are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
1-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
