IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1654 of 2009 SHARDA NAND SINGH @ LADDU SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 22/12/2009 Heard both sides. This revision application is pressed on the point of sentence only. It is said that though petitioner was falsely implicated in this case but that is done in the year 1993. He faced the prosecution for a long period and at the appellate stage, only, the informant realized his act of false implication that is why, he filed the compromise basing which 342 I.P.C. is decided in acquittal, but, due to non-offence under Section 377 I.P.C. non-compoundable, conviction reached by the trial court under this Section, is confirmed by the Appellate Court. According to the learned counsel that could be taken for a liberal view. According to him, the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than three months as he was allowed bail only under Section 167 (2) of the I.P.C. I agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled for a liberal view that can be minimise to the period undergone. Revision is partly allowed on the point of sentence by modifying and minimising the sentence of the period undergone affirming the conviction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith. 2 Let this order be communicated to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F.T.C. No. II), Araria, in connection with Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 1996/Trial No. 29 of 2008. S.Ali (Mandhata Singh, J.)