Partly allowed

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./347/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction for rioting, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. Considering the petitioner's age (68), the time elapsed (29 years), and the short remand period, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the petitioner was discharged from bail bond liability.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone; discharged from liability of bail bond.

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 347 of 2009

¶3

Md. Jabbar @ Md. Jabbar Mian ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶4

--------For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP --------

¶5

06/ 03.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VI, Dhanbad, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 88 of 1999, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.1999 in G.R. No. 2826 of 1993, corresponding to T.R. No. 174 of 1999, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, has been affirmed.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is of the year 1993 and he confines his argument on the question of sentence as the petitioner remained in custody for about 83 days. He further submits that now the petitioner is aged about 68 years and during entire period of bail, he never misused

¶8

the privilege of bail, as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment

¶10

¶11

and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the Courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶12

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby sustained.

¶13

6. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993 and 29 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these years. Further, the petitioner who is aged about 68 years also remained in custody for about 83 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail.

¶14

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison and interest of justice would be sufficed that the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone.

¶15

8. With the aforesaid observation and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands

¶16

¶17

disposed of.

¶18

9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

¶19

his bail bond.

¶20

10. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the

¶21

court below.

¶22

11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

¶23

concerned forthwith.

¶24

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶25

Pramanik/

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Jabbar Md.Jabbar Mian v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendar Kandu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Most.Sobrani And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Badri Prasad Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Hassan Imam Md.Hussan Imam Vs State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Nag Vs State of Jharkhand