(1.) PETITIONER's grievance is that he is not being released by jail authorities, even after his serving the sentence of total period for which he was sentenced under Section 376 IPC in Sessions Case No. 119/01 vide judgment and order dated 17. 5. 02 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota. He is not being released on parole for the reason that petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 110/41 Cr. P. C. wherein, he was required to furnish the bail bonds which he did not furnish and therefore, the learned Executive Magistrate vide order dated 29. 3. 2000, sentenced the petitioner to three years imprisonment. PETITIONER is denied release on completion of sentence in Sessions Case No. 119/01 on the ground that petitioner can be released after serving complete three years more sentence which was awarded in Criminal Case under Section 110/41 Cr. P. C. decided on 29. 3. 00 as the two sentences did not run concurrently.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that sentence in two matters can run concurrently and there is no need for separate order in subsequent conviction and sentence order making two sentences concurrent. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Vimal Mehra Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 789 = (2008 (4) RLW 3062) wherein, Division Bench of this Court considered Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr. P. C.
(3.) IN view of the above reasons, it is clear that the provisions under Chapter 8 are to bound down the person from whom security is required for keeping peace and good behaviour. It is also clear from above provisions that maximum period for which security for peace and good behaviour can be demanded is upto three years. IN default of furnishing the security and surety, the person against whom order has been passed, can be sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment which is the maximum period for which one can be bound down to keep peace and good behaviour.