TATIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER's grievance is that he is not being released by jail authorities, even after his serving the sentence of total period for which he was sentenced under Section 376 IPC in Sessions Case No. 119/01 vide judgment and order dated 17. 5. 02 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota. He is not being released on parole for the reason that petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 110/41 Cr. P. C. wherein, he was required to furnish the bail bonds which he did not furnish and therefore, the learned Executive Magistrate vide order dated 29. 3. 2000, sentenced the petitioner to three years imprisonment. PETITIONER is denied release on completion of sentence in Sessions Case No. 119/01 on the ground that petitioner can be released after serving complete three years more sentence which was awarded in Criminal Case under Section 110/41 Cr. P. C. decided on 29. 3. 00 as the two sentences did not run concurrently.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that sentence in two matters can run concurrently and there is no need for separate order in subsequent conviction and sentence order making two sentences concurrent. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Vimal Mehra Vs. State of Rajasthan 2008 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 789 = (2008 (4) RLW 3062) wherein, Division Bench of this Court considered Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr. P. C. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that unless there is an order of Court to run sentence concurrently, the sentences cannot run concurrently. For this learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on decision of Kerala High Court reported in the case of Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr reported in 2008 CRI. L. J 2297 wherein, Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that sentencing should be done normally consecutively and only in appropriate cases, Court can make sentence concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Section 122 Cr. P. C. provides for imprisonment in default of furnishing security when a person ordered to give security under Section 106 or Section 117 and he does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which security is to be given commences. As per sub-section (4) of Section 122, maximum period for which such person can be imprisoned is upto the period for which he was ordered to give security. Chapter 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the provisions for security for keeping peace and good behaviour of the persons. Under Section 106 Cr. P. C. , when a Court of Session or Court of a Magistrate of the first class convicts a person of any of the offences specified in sub-section (2) or of abetting any such offence and is of opinion that it is necessary to take security from such person for keeping the peace, the Court may, at the time of passing sentence on such person, order him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding three years. The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are enumerated under Sub-section (2) of Section 106 Cr. P. C. Under Section 117 Cr. P. C. , after completion of inquiry, under Chapter 8, if it is found that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour of a person, that person should execute a bond, with or without sureties, he can be directed to execute a bond with or without sureties. Proviso (a) of Section 117 Cr. P. C. Provides that no person shall be ordered to give security of a nature different from, or of an amount larger than, or for a period longer than, that specified in the order made under Section 119. Proviso (b) further provides that the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.
(3.) IN view of the above reasons, it is clear that the provisions under Chapter 8 are to bound down the person from whom security is required for keeping peace and good behaviour. It is also clear from above provisions that maximum period for which security for peace and good behaviour can be demanded is upto three years. IN default of furnishing the security and surety, the person against whom order has been passed, can be sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment which is the maximum period for which one can be bound down to keep peace and good behaviour. In the present case, the petitioner did not furnish the bond as ordered by the Executive Magistrate under Section 110 read with Section 117 Cr. P. C. as ordered vide order dated 29. 3. 2000 and therefore, he was undergoing sentence for three years. During his sentence, in Sessions Case No. 119/01, he was sentenced for ten years imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 17. 5. 02. As per reply filed by the State, petitioner has already served sentence of 9 years, 9 months and 27 days including remission in Sessions Case No. 119/01. The question of law raised before this Court is whether sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 122 Cr. P. C. shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded in Sessions Case No. 119/01 even when in the order of subsequent sentence, the Court has not ordered running two sentences concurrently and whether the petitioner is required to serve the remaining period of sentence awarded under the provisions of Section 122 Cr. P. C. after completion of his sentence awarded subsequently by the Court of Sessions Judge in the case under Section 376, I. P. C. ;