JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. Based on the written ejahar dated 26.09.2012 filed by one Sanjoy Saha (PW-1) disclosing that his bike bearing registration No. TR-03-C-8146 had been stolen from a place before ‘Adi Sajghar’ located at Udaipur New Town Road, R.K. Pur police station case no. 440 of 2012 was registered under Section 379 of the IPC. It appears from the record that the stolen bike was recovered on 26.09.2012 itself by a police officer at a place nearby Indiranagar on Melaghar-Sonamura road. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and on completion of the investigation he was charge-sheeted, but when the charges were framed under Section 379 and 411 of the IPC he denied the charges and pleaded innocence. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution adduced 8 witnesses and admitted 5 documentary evidence including the seizure list (Exhibit-3). After recording the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C when again the petitioner reiterated his plea of innocence, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur on completion of the trial, emanating from the said ejahar (Exhibit-1), returned the finding of conviction by the judgment dated 17.07.2013 holding that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 411 of the IPC. The trial court did not impose any sentence for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC, but the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine he has been further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The said conviction was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was, but the said appeal was dismissed on affirming the trial court’s judgment of conviction by the judgment dated 10.03.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 33(3) of 2013. In this revision petition, the said judgment dated 10.03.2014 is under challenge. 4. Mr. In this revision petition, the said judgment dated 10.03.2014 is under challenge. 4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without urging this court to decide the challenge on merit, has submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and at the time of committing the offence he was just 23 years of age. That apart, he has also suffered imprisonment for quite sometime. He has urged this court to consider whether the petitioner can be released on executing a bond of good conduct in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Undergoing some part of the sentence cannot be material for considering whether a convict can be allowed to remain on probation. 5. Having regard to the nature of the offence as committed by the petitioner, his age and absence of any criminal antecedent, this court is of the view that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act may be extended to the petitioner. Mr. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has not expressed any reservation. 6. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on execution of a bond of good conduct for a period of 2(two) years supported by one surety who would execute a bond of Rs.20,000/- undertaking that the probationer would not default. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not submit such bond of good conduct in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur, within a period of 30 days from today, the petitioner shall have to surrender in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur for suffering the sentence. For finally discharging the petitioner from the liability of suffering the imprisonment, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur shall pass the appropriate order after satisfactory completion of probation by the petitioner and such satisfaction shall be gathered from the report of the Probation Officer of the said area. 7. Accordingly, the order of sentence is suspended till completion of the period of the bond, as might be executed by the petitioner. This petition thus stands disposed of in terms of the above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.