Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 428 (JHR)

Sarula Munda v. State of Bihar

2011-05-10

PRAKASH TATIA, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
Order This Criminal Appeal (DB) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1992 in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1986 as the appellant was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The appeal was admitted on 3rd July, 1992. On application of the appellant, he was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, each to the satisfaction at the 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. When the case was called out for hearing on 9th May, 2010, nobody appeared and it was noticed that the appellant was released on bail vide order dated 3rd May, 1993. Therefore, it was ordered for ensuring the arrest of the appellant. 4. A report came from the trial court that in view of the order passed by this Court, the accused has been arrested and has been lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi. It is worthwhile to mention here that the trial court vide letter dated 17th February, 2011 informed that the Jail Superintendent of Birsa Manda Central Jail, Ranchi pointed out that the accused was convicted under Sessions Case No. 225 of 1986 and was serving the life sentence and he served the entire period of sentence and thereafter was released on 12th April, 2002. However, in view of the order of this Court for issuance of non-bailable warrant, the appellant has' been again lodged in jail. 5. From the facts referred above, it is clear that the accused, who was convicted in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1986 has already served the sentence and therefore he cannot be kept in custody. Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant-accused (Sarula Munda) be released forth with (if not arrested in any other case) without any bond or surety as he has already served the sentence, as stated by the Superintendent of Jail. 6. Since the appellant has already served the entire sentence under the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1992 passed in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1986, nothing survives in this appeal and hence it is dismissed as become infructuous, because of the reason that nobody also wanted to pursue the appeal for getting the order of conviction set aside. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.