IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.58 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2014 Thana- DARIGAON District- Rohtas ======================================================

1. Radhe Shyam Singh, Son of Late Vishwanath Singh

2. Raj Vansh Singh. Son of Late Vishwanath Singh

3. Manti Kumar @ Angad Kumar Son of Saheb Singh

4. Vijay Singh @ Vinay Singh @ Vinay Kumar Son of Raj Vansh Singh

5. Amrendra Kumar Son of Siyaram Singh

6. Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu Pratap Kumar Singh Son of Raj Vansh Singh

7. Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Singh @ Pawan Kumar, Son of Saheb Singh All are Residents of Village - Siguhi, P.S. - Darigaon, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Govind Singh, S/O Shiv Singh, R/O Village- Singuhi, P.S- Darigaon, Distt.-

Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viashal Saurabh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

10 06-01-2026 I.A.No.01 of 2025 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking exemption from filing surrender certificate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there could be no pre-condition of surrender by the petitioners for filing the revision application in this Court and he refers to Section 438 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 397 of Cr.P.C.) wherein the court has been given power to suspend execution of any sentence or order. He also relies on the following decisions of different High Courts : (i) 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1231, (ii) 1979SCC OnLine Ker 140 (iii) BLJ 1999 (3) SC 500 and (iv) order dated 20.02.2024 passed in CRR No. 729 of 2024 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, wherein it has been held that for admission of criminal revision calling for record there could be no pre-condition to surrender. Thus, learned counsel submits that this interlocutory application may be allowed and the petitioners be exempted from filing surrender certificated till disposal of the present revision petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties vehemently contends that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. The learned counsel for the opposite parties refers to Rule 57A, Part II, Chapter XII (H) of Rules of the High Court at Patna, 1916 which specifically provides that in the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of a conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the petition shall state whether the petitioner had surrendered or not. If he has surrendered, the petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not surrendered the petition shall be accompanied by an application seeking leave to surrender within a specified period. On sufficient cause being shown, the Bench may grant such time and on such conditions as it thinks fit and proper. No such revision shall be posted for admission unless the petitioner has surrendered to custody in the concerned Court. The learned counsel thereafter refers to the case of Daulat Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.20900/2024] wherein in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a High Court, under its inherent power, cannot grant exemption from surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving effect to orders passed under the Code and/or to prevent abuse of the process of a court. The learned counsel further submits that in the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court was under challenge wherein under Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rule