Crl. Revn. No. 1881 of 2010 (O&M) & Crl. Revn. No. 2365 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Revn. No. 1881 of 2010 (O&M) Vijay Bahadur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Crl. Revn. No. 2635 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumari ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent Date of decision:- 25.04.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- None RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) This petition will dispose of Crl. Revn. No. 1881 of 2010 (O&M) and Crl. Revn. No. 2635 of 2010 (O&M) as these are arisen out of a common judgment. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the learned Session Judge, Ropar whereby it was held that the accused Vijay Bahadur and Ram Kishan were convicted rightly for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC whereas appellant Preeto Devi was acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt. The accused Vijay Bahadur and Ram Kishan were acquitted of the charges qua commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. It has further been held that keeping in view that incident had taken place in the year 2002 and the accused had been appearing without failing since then, so, they were held entitled to be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of Probation of Offenders Act. The conviction was Crl. Revn. No. 1881 of 2010 (O&M) & Crl. Revn. No. 2365 of 2010 (O&M) -2- upheld and the accused Vijay Bahadur and Ram kishan were ordered to be released on probation subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with a surety of like amount and on undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years as on undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when so called during the probation period of 3 years. The amount of fine paid by the appellants was to be deposited in litigation costs of Rs.3000/-. A direction has also been given that they (appellants) should furnish the bonds within a period of 7 days in the Court. This revision was filed on 25.05.2010 and no one has chosen to appear in support of the revision till date. After going through the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Ropar, this Court is of the view that it requires no interference as petitioners have been granted benefit to release on probation keeping in view that the petitioners are facing trial since 1996; they are regularly attending the Court proceedings and there were no interim stay on the judgment dated 10.05.2010. The petitioners have also availed the benefit of probation as per the judgment dated 10.05.2010 as almost 10 months have gone by. No merits Dismissed. April 25, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE