Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 318 (RAJ)

Mangtu @ Jagdish v. State of Raj. (85)

1991-04-02

N.L.TIBREWAL

body1991
Tibrewal, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to extend the time of submitting bail bonds in compliance to the direction of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer vide his judgment dated June 6, 1989, by which the conviction of the petitioner under section 324 IPC was maintained, but he was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. (2). The facts for the present petition are that the petitioner was tried in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer in criminal case No. 895/79. The learned Magistrate, after the completion of the trial, held the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-,vide judgment dated April 9, 1983. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 89/85, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal number was 98/85 and in order of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.03.1991, the appeal number 89/85 has been wrongly mentioned. The appeal was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on June 16, 1989 and it was allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 IPC was maintained, but instead of sentencing him for the imprisonment at once, he was given benefit of probation with direction to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer. One month time was granted for furnishing bail bonds. (3). It appears that the petitioner could not furnish the requisite bail bonds in time. He moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, for extension of the time for furnishing the requisite bail bonds. In the said application he gave out that he was not intimated by his lawyer that he was required to furnish bail bonds within a period of one month. It was further given out that he is in service of Railway Department, and as such, he will suffer irreparable loss, if he is deprived the benefit of probation on the ground of non- submitting requisite bail bonds in time. It was further given out that he is in service of Railway Department, and as such, he will suffer irreparable loss, if he is deprived the benefit of probation on the ground of non- submitting requisite bail bonds in time. However, this petition was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated March 27, 1991. I have been given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the date of rejection of the said application, the petitioner has been taken into custody to serve out the sentence of imprisonment. (4). Under these circumstances, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.G. has been filed with a prayer to extend the time for furnishing the bail bonds in compliance with the aforesaid direction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has again submitted before me that the petitioner could not file the requisite bail bonds in time as there was a communication gap between him and his lawyer. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in government service, i.e., Railway Establishment, and in case he does not get benefit of probation, it may have serious affect on his service also. (5). The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer. (6). The provisions for granting probation have a social object. As the modern trend stands, a convict is given the benefit of this provision so that he may reform himself and be of good behaviour in future. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act further provides that in case the benefit of probation is granted,then the conviction of the accused does not remain as disqualification in his service. (7). The petitioner is a Government servant as stated above. The contention of the petitioner that he could not submit the requisite bail bonds in time on account of communication gap between him and his lawyer may be true, inspite of the fact that he might be -present at the time of pronouncement of the order of the lower appellate court. In the instant case, it is in the interest of justice that if he has been given benefit of probation then, the should get the benefit though there may be some negligence on his part. (8). In the instant case, it is in the interest of justice that if he has been given benefit of probation then, the should get the benefit though there may be some negligence on his part. (8). Taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to further extend the period for submitting requisite bail bonds in pursuance of the direction of the lower appellate court, vide its judgment dated 16.6.89, and this period is extended upto 30.04.1991, and it is directed that the petitioner may now furnish the requisite bail bonds as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, upto 30.04.1991. The petition stands disposed of as indicated above. (9). The petitioner is in judicial custody and he shall be ordered to be released forthwith on his furnishing the requisite bail bonds in the concerned court.