Patna High Court
Rishi Rai @ Rishi RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Since the petitioner has already served the maximum two‑year sentence, he must be released upon payment of the fine, and the revision petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the IPC, receiving three years of rigorous imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the sentence under Section 25(1‑B)a was reduced to two years of simple imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner filed a criminal revision arguing that he had already spent more than two years in custody (both as an under‑trial and after conviction) and therefore had served the maximum term. The High Court examined the total period of incarceration against the maximum sentence of two years and held that, having served the full term, the petitioner is entitled to release upon payment of the fine. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed, directing the authorities to release the petitioner if the fine is paid.
Issues considered
- Whether the revision petition is maintainable when the petitioner has already served the maximum sentence imposed.
- Whether the appellate court's modification of the sentence should be set aside on the ground of time already served.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to release upon payment of the fine imposed by the trial court.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 414
Subjects
- Arms Act
- sentencing
- revision petition
- concurrent sentences
- release on fine
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1027 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2018 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Rishi Rai @ Rishi Roy S/O Baldev Rai @ Baldev Ray R/O Village- Rupauli
Tola Danghara, P.S- Musrigharari, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad, Adv.
For the OP : Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
7 03-02-2026 The present petition has been filed for setting aside
the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge-V, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No.
41/2022, G.R. No. 215 of 2018, T.R. No. 1009/2022 arising out
of Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 90/2018 for the offences registered
under Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 414
of the IPC whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court
modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial court under
Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act to that of SI for two years in
place of three years of RI.
02. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms
Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1027 of 2024(7) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine,
further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of three months. Learned trial court sentenced the
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences under Section 26 of the Arms
Act and on default of payment the fine, further directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
At appellate stage, the learned Appellate Court of
Additional District Judge-V, Samastipur modified the sentence
awarded with respect to the offences punishable under Section
25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and reduced it to simple imprisonment
of two years instead of three years of rigorous imprisonment
while affirming the other parts of the order and ordered that the
sentences were to run concurrently.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset,
submits that the petitioner has remained in custody from
24.04.2018 to 06.12.2018 as an under trial and thereafter from
13.09.2024 till date after conviction. Therefore, the petitioner
has remained in custody for more than two years. Hence, the
matter has become infructuous as the petitioner has already
served the sentenced period. The learned counsel prays for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1027 of 2024(7) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
release of the petitioner.
04. Having regard to the submission, it is clear that
the maximum sentence awarded was only two years with fine
and sentences were to be run concurrently. If the petitioner has
already served the maximum period of two years, on payment of
fine, the petitioner should be released from custody. Therefore,
the authorities concerned are directed to look into the matter and
if the petitioner has served the sentenced period, he is directed
to be released from the custody if not wanted in any other case,
of course subject to payment of fine imposed by the learned trial
court in Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 90/2018.
05. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…