HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHV'AT B LAS R Cr.M.P. No. 53/2009 PETI'HONER IN ‘ CUSTODY Bhupendra @ Biru, S/o Shn‘ Panchmm Markam, Castt~Gond, aged about 28 yeam, R/o Village—Dharmapur, RS. Lalbag, Distt.’ Rajnandgaon (C.G.). RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through Dist. Magistrate Rajnandgaon. VERSUS APPLICATION UNDER sECTION 482 CR.P.C. (BB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Shn' C.R. Sahu, Advocate far the petitioxmr/ appEcaIit. Shri Shushil Dubey, G.A. for the State] respondent. ORAL. ORDER (passed on 02/02/2009) 1. This petition is for appropriate order/direction in toms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Shushil Dubey, G.A. for the State] mspondent axe heard. 3. Cider impugned'and other documents perused. Lewned counsel for the applicant submits that Bhupendra has been convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in criminal I case No. 117/01 vide judment dated 29/8/2001 and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 1 V2 yeais for the onence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he is not challenging the propriety and legality of the conviction but he is challenging the sentence audits \ commencement in peculiar circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant further requests that taking into x consideration his detention mm 2000, his sentence be reduced nom l E . “A“ .A‘i.“ rwrm ~m#w—MWm‘. 1 V2 years to the penod already undergone or his scnfbncc shall e commenced mm the date of the Judgment Le. ordered to b 29/8/2001. 5. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant submits that he has cted for the oeence pumshable under Secu n 224 of the ' been co , Indian Penal Code and sentenced ngorous mpnsonment for 1 V2 als Vide judgment dated 29/ 8/ 2001. ye 6. Leanled counsel for the State] respondent also submits that applicant )2] 2000 in several cases mld he was in custody these cases nom 15/8] 2008 thereby he had nom 15/al2008 till was in custndy nwom 3 not been released after 1n the mstant case for 169 days He has completlon of the sentence but Central Jall Ralpur has mhmated the phcant that after completton of the sentences of other cases he 1s serving the sentence all served 169 days as a pre-detention period and today abouts months and 17 days thereby he has sun‘ered- the total sentence about 11 months. 7 . It is not disputed that anplicant/ petitioner is in custody since 2000 'm sadid'erent cases and had suh'ered about more than 8 years of the sentence in did'erent cases including 11 months of this ease. After ‘ lapse of 8 years any further conn’nuance of the applicant in detention purpose and in. the r peculiar for 7 months would not serve any s of the case the appropriate order in terms of Section 1973 would serve the ends of it is directed that thesentence awarded to the hem the date of the judgment i.e. he be released forthwith if not required in circumstance 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, _ justice. Consequently, applicant shall be commenced 29/8/2001 and caSC . any other Sdl— , T.P. SHARMA Judge ~ l‘ \