JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State of Jharkhand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the question of sentence only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the present revision application was tagged and was directed to be heard with Criminal Revision Nos. 945 of 2013, 1023 of 2013 and 843 of 2014 which were filed by the co-accused of the present case, but for the reasons not known to him, the present revision could not be heard alongwith the other analogous cases and the other analogous cases have been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 whereby the sentence has been modified considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel submits that case of the petitioner is on similar footing as that of the other co-accused. He submits that the present offence of the petitioner is his first offence. 5. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that due to some error, this revision petition could not be tagged with the other revision petitions which were disposed of on 29.11.2019. He also does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated as the case of the other co-accused, whose revision petition has already been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the present offence of the petitioner is his first offence. 6. Upon this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present petitioner may also be given similar relief as has been granted to the other co-accused in their respective revision petitions. He particularly refers to the case of the co-accused namely, Md. 6. Upon this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present petitioner may also be given similar relief as has been granted to the other co-accused in their respective revision petitions. He particularly refers to the case of the co-accused namely, Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum and submits that the said co-accused had remained in custody for a period of 116 days only and so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has remained in custody for a period from 15.03.2001 to 16.07.2001 i.e. 124 days during trial and for a period from 13.02.2014 to 04.04.2014 during the pendency of this revision application and that the total period of custody of the present petitioner would be 173 days and accordingly, the case of the petitioner is on better footing when compared with case of Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum, although the age of the petitioner is slightly less as compared to Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum. 7. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2012 which was decided with another analogous case namely, Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2012. Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2012 was filed by the present petitioner and Md. Kayum Sekh and Istaque Khan and the other criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2012 was filed by Govind Ram Agarwal. 8. In the aforesaid criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2012, the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 205 of 2001 was upheld. All the accused were convicted for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one-and-a-half years and the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned trial court by a common judgment. 9. Govind Ram Agarwal had filed Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2013, Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum had filed Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 2013, Istaque Khan had filed Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2014 and the present Criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner. 10. 9. Govind Ram Agarwal had filed Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2013, Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum had filed Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 2013, Istaque Khan had filed Criminal Revision No. 843 of 2014 and the present Criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner. 10. This Court finds that in Criminal Revision No. 945 and other analogous cases, which were disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2019, the petitioners of those cases had also confined their arguments on the point of sentence and on 29.11.2019, the accused namely, Govind Ram Agarwal was more than 80 years of age, Md. Kayum Sekh @ S.M. Kayum was about 45 years of age, Istaque Khan was also 45 years of age and each one of them had remained in custody for a period of 66 days, 116 days and 319 days respectively. The co-ordinate Bench has considered the fact that the accused of the present case have suffered the rigorous of the criminal case for last 18 years and has also recorded that the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity and considering this aspect of the matter, it was found expedient in the interest of justice to modify the sentence and limiting it to the extent already undergone and directed to give some amount to be given to the informant of the case by way of fine. 11. This Court finds that the present petitioner is 40 years of age and has remained in custody for a period of about 173 days in connection with the case. It is also not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. 12. Considering the case of the co-accused as decided by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2013 and other analogous cases, this Court hereby modifies the sentence of the present petitioner to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the learned trial court. Upon deposit of the fine amount, the bailors will be discharged from the liability under the bail bond. 5,000/- to be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the learned trial court. Upon deposit of the fine amount, the bailors will be discharged from the liability under the bail bond. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount within the stipulated time-frame, his bail bond will be cancelled by the learned trial court and he would serve the remaining sentence imposed by the learned courts below. The fine amount so deposited is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case upon due identification. 13. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modifications in sentence, this revision application is hereby disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 15. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/Email.”