JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25-8-80 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Bharatpur in Sessions case No. 60/80 whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced as under:- U/s 364, IPC 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, 1 months R.I.) U/s 452, IPC 1 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, 1 months R.I.) U/s 147, 323/149, 342/576, IPC one month's R.I. under each count. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted under Section 382, IPC. Co-accused persons were acquitted of all the offences charged. 2. Shri Surana, learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, while not challenging the findings arrived at by the court below on merits, has not argued on the points urged in the memo of appeal except that of giving the benefit of probation to the appellant. 3. Shri Surana, in this regard submitted that the offence is said to have been committed in December, 1979; the appellant remained on bail throughout the period of trial and pendente appeal without misusing the concession of the bail, the appellant was young chap at the time of the alleged incident. Shri Surana further urged that the trial court did not assign special reasons for non-grant of benefit of probation to the appellant resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, I may state that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants are habitual offender. The incident is of December, 1979 and after afflux of time from 1979 till date, of about 11 years, it would be hardsh rather the passage of time would modify the sting which may cause if he is sent behind the bar without dealing with them under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and without assigning special reasons for not granting benefit of probation keeping in view the proposition of the law laid down in Bishandeo v. State of W.B. (AIR 1989 SC 964) . There are no extenuating circumstances on record to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the appellant. Thus it is a fit case which should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation. There are no extenuating circumstances on record to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the appellant. Thus it is a fit case which should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation. The appellant is not person with shady past. 5. The appeal is dismissed so far as the merits are concerned as Shri Surana confined his arguments to deal with the case under the Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sending the appellant in judicial custody, he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 2,000/. (rupees two thousand only) together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for one year from the execution of bonds to appear in the trial court when called upon during this period of probation and to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appellant is ordered to furnish the aforesaid bond in the trial Court within a period of three months failing which he shall have to surrender before the court to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court. To the above extent, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified. If the bonds are not produced and the appellant failed to surrender after three months, the trial Court shall take active steps for his arrest so as to serve out the sentence in question.The record be sent back forthwith. *******