[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pushkar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3411) on 16 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:3411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 66/2026
Pushkar Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, Ward
No 13 Sanjay Chowk Bhadra District Hanumangarh (Lodged At
Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Manjeet Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr NS Chandawat, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/01/2026
1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under
Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. (438/442 of the BNSS) assailing the
judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, the appellate judgment dated
31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2019, and the
subsequent order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, whereby the prayer of the
accused-petitioner for acceptance of bond/surety and deposit of
prosecution expenses, in terms of the appellate judgment, came
to be rejected.
2. The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 14
and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Vide judgment dated
06.12.2018, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:19:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3411] (2 of 5) [CRLR-66/2026]
him to undergo three years' simple imprisonment along with fine.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The
appellate court, vide judgment dated 31.01.2025, while
maintaining the conviction, set aside the substantive sentence and
extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner, subject to his
furnishing bond and surety for maintaining peace and good
conduct for a period of three years and deposit of prosecution
expenses within the stipulated time.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner could not comply with
the aforesaid conditions within the time granted by the appellate
court. On account of such non-compliance, his prayer for
acceptance of bond/surety and deposit of prosecution expenses
was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra,
vide order dated 06.12.2025, and the petitioner was taken into
custody, where he continues to remain.
4. There is a delay of 258 days in filing the present revision
petition. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has
been filed explaining the delay. The explanation discloses that the
petitioner was suffering from alcohol addiction, remained admitted
in a de-addiction/rehabilitation centre for a considerable period,
and thereafter was arrested and remained in custody. The record
also indicates that time was consumed in obtaining certified copies
and in taking appropriate legal advice. The delay does not appear
to be deliberate or intentional. In criminal proceedings, where the
question of personal liberty is involved, a pragmatic and liberal
approach is required. No specific prejudice has been demonstrated
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:19:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3411] (3 of 5) [CRLR-66/2026]
by the respondent-State. In the interest of justice, the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the
revision petition is condoned.
5. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor for the State on merits.
6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced and has examined the material available on
record. It is evident that the appellate court, while maintaining the
conviction, consciously adopted a reformative approach and found
the petitioner entitled to the benefit of probation. The sentence of
imprisonment was set aside and the petitioner was afforded an
opportunity to reform himself by maintaining peace and good
conduct and by complying with the conditions imposed.
7. The impugned order dated 06.12.2025 has denied the
petitioner the benefit flowing from the appellate judgment solely
on account of non-compliance within the stipulated time. The
record, however, indicates that such non-compliance was not wilful
or deliberate. The circumstances placed on record show that the
petitioner was undergoing treatment and thereafter remained in
custody, which hindered timely compliance. The petitioner has
expressed his readiness and willingness to comply with all the
conditions imposed by the appellate court.
8. The purpose of granting probation is not punitive but
reformative. The object is to prevent first-time or minor offenders
from being exposed to the rigours of imprisonment and to provide
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:19:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3411] (4 of 5) [CRLR-66/2026]
them an opportunity to mend their ways under the supervision of
law. Once a competent appellate court has extended the benefit of
probation, a strictly technical approach in enforcing the time
schedule, without considering the surrounding circumstances,
results in frustration of the very object of probation. Continued
incarceration of the petitioner, despite the grant of probation,
would render the appellate judgment largely ineffective.
9. Further, the impugned order does not reflect consideration of
whether the ends of justice would be better served by granting the
petitioner a reasonable opportunity to comply with the conditions,
particularly when no allegation of misuse of liberty or breach of
conditions has been levelled against him. The order, therefore,
suffers from material irregularity and impropriety, warranting
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.12.2025
cannot be sustained.
11. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The
order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhadra is set aside. The petitioner shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
12. It is further directed that the petitioner shall comply with the
operative part of the appellate judgment dated 31.01.2025 and
avail the benefit of probation by furnishing the requisite bond and
surety and by depositing the prosecution expenses, strictly in
terms thereof, within a period of one month from the date of his
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:19:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3411] (5 of 5) [CRLR-66/2026]
release. In case of failure to comply within the aforesaid period,
the consequences shall follow in accordance with law.
13. The revision petition stands allowed in these terms.
14. All pending applications are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
1-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:19:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
