JANAK RAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGHARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is listed for orders on admission. However, with the consent of the parties, it is being disposed of finally. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 5.10.2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, in miscellaneous case relating to Cr. A. No. 186/07, pending before this Court, which has arisen out of S.T. No. 190/06, whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner/surety for discharging him, has been rejected.

(2.) As per case of the revision petitioner, trial of one Daova Dhimar, S/o. Budhu Dhimar, (respondent No. 2/accused herein) was conducted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in S.T. No. 190/06 for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC and by the judgment dated 27.2.2007, he was convicted under both the Sections. Under Section 376 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional RI for 2 months and under Section 450 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years, pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for 2 months. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.2.2007, respondent No. 2/accused herein preferred an appeal i.e. Cr. A. No. 186/07 before this Court alongwith an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. This Court vide order dated 9.7.2007 allowed the said application and directed that execution of the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant/convict (respondent No. 2/accused herein) shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal in case he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In compliance thereof, respondent No. 2/accused furnished a personal bond and surety bond of the revision petitioner, which was accepted and he was released on bail and continued to appear before the trial Court as directed.

(3.) Thereafter, as the revision petitioner was in need of money and intending to sell his immovable property, therefore, he appeared alongwith respondent No. 2/accused and his counsel Ku. Deepa Soni before the trial Court and moved an application for discharging him. On that date, respondent No. 2/accused was also ready to furnish a new bond of another surety. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that the papers relating to bail of respondent No. 2/accused are not available with the trial Court.