ORAL ORDER

1.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filling of this criminal revision, in brief are that the petitioners are accused and they have faced trial arising out of Sasaram P.S. Case No.394 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 504, 379, 354 of the IPC.

2. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Rohtas, Sasaram by the judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed in G.R. Case No.840 of 2014 (Trial No.164/19/C.I.S. No.- 833/2014) convicted and sentenced the petitioners, which are as under:-

(a)-01 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section147 of the IPC,

(b)-06 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 of the IPC,

(c)-02 Years’ simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/149 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.2000/- to each petitioners, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for two months,

(d)-02 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 341/149 of the IPC with further direction that all the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and order dated 19.08.2019, petitioners have preferred Criminal Appeal No.59/2019 before the Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-X, Rohatas, Sasaram which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated12.11.2024 confirming the judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 of the learned Magistrate (trial Court) with a direction to the petitioners to surrender within 30 days.

4. Petitioners did not surrender after dismissal of their Criminal Appeal and preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 against the above judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Rohtas, Sasaram as well as against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-x, Rohatas, Sasaram.

5. The Office (reporting section) of this Court while reporting this Criminal Revision has pointed out several defects. Out of which one of the defect was that petitioners have not filed surrender certificate.

6. The petitioners have removed all the defects except the defect of filing surrender certificate and they moved supplementary affidavit seeking exemption from filing the surrender certificate. Later-on with the permission of the Court, the said supplementary affidavit was converted into Interlocutory Application No.1/2025.

7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing Mr. Vishal Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 at length, rejected the said Interlocutory Application of the petitioners vide detail order dated 06.01.2026. The relevant part of the order dated 06.01.2026 is quoted as under:

“I.A. No.01 of 2025

1…..

2……

3……

4……

5……

6……

7……

8……

9……

10……

11……

12. In the present case, this Court is faced with similar predicament. The provision of Rule 57A of the Rules of the High Court at Patna is quite explicit. The aforesaid Rule provides for filing of the surrender certificate if a convict has already surrendered or to seek leave to surrender within the specified period by filing an application. On sufficient cause being shown, the Court may grant such time and on such condition as it thinks fit and proper. But the Rule does not provide for grant of exemption from surrender to a convict, who has approached this Court as revisionist. Only liberty which has been granted to a convict that if he has not surrendered at the time of filing of the revision petition, he may moved an application seeking leave to surrender within specified period. This liberty cannot be extended to grant of exemption from surrender till disposal of the revision petition.

13. Therefore, in the light of the specific provision in the Rules of the High Court at Patna and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daul