IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the necessity of considering an offender's financial and social circumstances when determining eligibility for probation, promoting rehabilitation over punishment.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Challenge herein is to the judgment dated 13.03.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Criminal Appeal No.106/2018 (CIS No.106/2018). The impugned judgment though confirmed the conviction of the petitioners under sections 457 and 380 of IPC awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, in Criminal Complaint No.71/2017, dated 20.11.2018, but modified the sentence of 2 years of simple imprisonment with Rs.1,000 fine and 15 days of imprisonment in default thereof, and instead ordered their release on probation with a condition that each petitioner must deposit Rs. 10,000/- as prosecution expenses (totaling Rs. 40,000/-) and furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with condition of good behavior for one year.

2. Relevant factual background first. The complainant, Lalit Soni, filed FIR No. 331/2005 at Police Station Kotwali under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, alleging that on 14.02.2005 at around 7 P.M., he closed his shop and went to his village, Navagoav. The next morning at around 9:30 A.M., he found that someone had broken the shop's back wall and stolen various items, including a watch, DVD, CD, and speakers. Investigation ensued, petitioners were apprehended and tried.

3. On 20.11.2018, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 457 IPC, sentencing them to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with an additional 15 days of imprisonment in default of payment. A similar sentence was imposed under Section 380 IPC. The petitioners appealed this decision. The Appellate Court partially allowed the appeal, directing release of the petitioners on probation subject to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each as prosecution expenses and furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with further condition of good behavior for one year. While confirming the conviction, the Appellate Court, by order dated 13.03.2024, quashed the sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate and thus modified the earlier order.

4. However, being poor, none of the petitioners have been either pay Rs.10,000/- each or manage the bail bonds. They continue to languish in jail. Hence the instant petition.

5. Heard.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners are innocent and actually poor daily wagers/laborers. They do not belong to Rajasthan and left their native state in search of work. They have been thus unable to comply with the Appellate Court's order dated 13.03.2024 to pay Rs. 10,000/-each in court expenses totaling Rs. 40,000/- and furnish and bail bonds.

6.1. The petitioners are uneducated and unaware of legal procedures, making it difficult for them to arrange for the bail bonds and deposit required amount. As a result, the Trial Court issued an arrest warrant on 05.08.2024, leading to their arrest and subsequent imprisonment.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and seeks dismissal of the petition. He would submit that petitioners are convicts and must undergo the imprisonment as awarded to them.

6. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short "Act") was enacted in order to save offenders in appropriate cases from being habitual offenders by providing them with a chance to reform rather than dumping into jails. For ready reference, Section 4 of Act is reproduced herein below:

"Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.--

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any pun