Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2021
1 W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2021 & analogous matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2021
Anil Kumar @ Anil Mahto, aged about 42 years, S/o Punit Mahto,
Resident of Village Chotki Pona, P.O. Badki Pona, P.S. Ramgarh,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand, ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, P.O. Reformatory School, Kolghatti, P.S. Lohsinghna,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 73 of 2020
Arun Kumar Verma, aged about 48 years, son of Beniram Verma,
resident of Sanskrit College, Raja hata, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.
Sukhdeb Nagar, District- Ranchi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 85 of 2020
Silbester Kerketta, son of late Simon Kerketta, aged about 46 years,
resident of Village- Karong, P.O. & P.S. Raidih, District- Gumla, State-
Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
2 W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2021 & analogous matters
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 221 of 2020
Md. Yunus Ansari, S/o Albabu Ansari, aged about 55 years, R/o
Bharrah Basti, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
4. The Inspector General of Prison, T.A. Division, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
5. The Superintendent of Jail, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag
6. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro
... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 269 of 2020
Visheshwar Mahto, Son of late Lutan Mahto, aged about 50 years,
resident of Sehar, P.S. Ratu, P.O. Piska Nagri, District- Ranchi, State-
Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 270 of 2020
Narayan Mahto, Son of Kalicharan Mahto, aged about 48 years,
resident of Sehar, P.O. Piska Nagri, P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, State-
Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
3 W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2021 & analogous matters
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 294 of 2020
Lebor Singh Kunkal, age 41 years, S/o Deeyu Kunkal, Resident of
Patahatu tola, Nagar Sai, P.O. Gitilpe, P.S. Manjhari, District- West
Singhbhum, State- Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 297 of 2020
Tombo Kunkal, age 42 years, S/o Jiki Kunkal, Resident of Patahatu
tola, Nagar sai, P.S. Manjhari, District- West Singhbhum, State-
Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, Hotwar, P.O.
Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 13 of 2021
Rajesh Choudhary, aged about 41 years, S/o Dewan Choudhary,
Resident of Chinakuri 3 No., Mandir Para, Niyamat pur, P.O. Radha
nagar railway colony, P.S. Kulti, District- Barddhaman, West Bengal-
713360 ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
4 W.P.(Cr.) No. 14 of 2021 & analogous matters
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, P.O. Reformatory School, Kolghatti, P.S. Lohsingna,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 21 of 2021
Mukesh Kumar Mehta @ Mukesh Mehta @ Mahto, aged about 40
years, S/o Dineshwar Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village- Hadari, P.O. &
P.S. Ichak, District- Hazaribagh, Pincode-825402, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, P.O. Reformatory School, Kolghatti, P.S. Lohsingna,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... Respondents
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 22 of 2021
Pappu Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Ramadhar Singh,
Resident of Village Dumri, P.O. Dumri, P.S. Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai,
Pincode-811302, Bihar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Superintendent, Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, P.O. Reformatory School, Kolghatti, P.S. Lohsingna,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
[In all cases except W.P. (Cr.)-221/2020]
Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
[In W.P. (Cr.)-221/2020]
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A.-I
[In W.P. (Cr.)-14/21, 297/20, 13/21, 21/21]
Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II
[In W.P. (Cr.)-73/20, 294/20]
Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III
[In W.P. (Cr.)-85/20]
Ms. Rashmi Lal, A.C. to Sr. Sr. S.C.-III
[In W.P. (Cr.)-221/20]
Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
[In W.P. (Cr.)-269/20, 270/20]
-----
13/30.11.2021. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Mr. P.C. Sinha,
Ms. Rashmi Lal and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for the respondent-
State.
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these writ
applications, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the State Sentence
Review Board.
W.P. (Cr.) No.14 of 2021
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-
VII, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 403 of 2002, corresponding to
G.R. No.1653 of 2001 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 201 of 2001 for
the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 07.03.2006 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 481 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
08.01.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 15 years 7 months
and 15 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 21 years 7 months and 15 days as on 18.12.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No.73 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-352, dated 21.01.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in
connection with S.T. No. 12 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 302/34,
376G, 394 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 19.05.2004 and
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1549 of 2004, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
25.01.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 21.01.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 15 years 11 months
and 4 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 22 years 1 month and 9 days as on 22.02.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No.85 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-352, dated 21.01.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla
in connection with S.T. No. 20 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 302,
380, 449 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 15.05.2006 and
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1164 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
07.06.2017. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 21.01.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 16 years 4 months
and 22 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 22 years 11 months as on 17.03.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 221 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 353, dated
21.01.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary of Department of Home, Jail and
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the
claim of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st,
Bokaro in connection with S.T. No. 24 of 2005 (Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case
No. 61 of 1999) vide judgment dated 20.05.2004 and was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life.
The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board but
vide notification dated 21.01.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 18 years 9 months of
actual custody and with remission the custody of the petitioner was 24
years.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 269 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,
F.T.C., Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 225 of 1995, corresponding to
G.R. No.1595 of 1994 arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No. 82 of 1994 for the
offence under Sections 364A, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 27.05.2005 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 569 of 2007 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
25.02.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 17 years 1 month
and 7 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 23 years 11 months and 25 days as on 17.10.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 270 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,
F.T.C.-VII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 225 of 1995, corresponding to
G.R. No.1595 of 1994 arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No. 82 of 1994 for the
offence under Sections 364A, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 27.05.2005 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 866 of 2005 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
25.02.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 17 years 6 months
and 1 day of actual custody and with remission the custody of the petitioner
was 24 years 2 months and 5 days as on 17.10.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 294 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II,
Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 223 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.
237 of 2003 arising out of Manjhari P.S. Case No.11 of 2003 for the offence
under Sections 302/34, 376(2)(g), 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 06.10.2004 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1924 of 2004 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
27.04.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 17 years 3 months
and 16 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 24 years 4 months and 25 days as on 17.10.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 297 of 2020
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II,
Chaibasa in connection with S.T. No. 223 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.
237 of 2003 arising out of Manjhari P.S. Case No.11 of 2003 for the offence
under Sections 302/34, 376(2)(g), 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 06.10.2004 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1924 of 2004 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
27.04.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 17 years 3 months
and 16 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 24 years 4 months and 20 days as on 17.10.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 13 of 2021
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI,
Dhanbad in connection with S.T. No. 93 of 2003/137 of 2003, corresponding
to G.R. No. 2649 of 2002 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2002 for
the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide
judgment dated 22.08.2006 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1269 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
25.05.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 16 years 3 months
and 16 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 21 years 11 months and 8 days as on 18.12.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 21 of 2021
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V,
Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 217 of 2003, corresponding to G.R.
No. 2907 of 2001 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No. 128 of 2001 for the
offence under Sections 364A, 302, 323, 376, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code vide judgment dated 21.12.2004 and was sentenced to undergo R.I.
for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 60 of 2005 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.01.2006.
The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board but vide
notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present application
the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at the time of
filing of the writ application had completed 19 years and 6 days of actual
custody and with remission the custody of the petitioner was 25 years 4
months and 6 days as on 18.12.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 22 of 2021
The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-
07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of
Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner
has been rejected.
The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the
petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III,
Dhanbad in connection with S.T. No. 11 of 2003, arising out of Dhanbad P.S.
Case No. 281 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 364A/120B, 379/120B
of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 25.03.2004 and was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 837 of 2004 which was dismissed vide judgment dated
04.02.2011. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board
but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present
application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at
the time of filing of the writ application had completed 17 years 11 months
and 11 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the
petitioner was 23 years and 5 days as on 18.12.2020.
The common thread which runs through the arguments advanced by
the learned counsels for the petitioners in all the cases is that the 1984
policy with respect to premature release of a convict issued by the State of
Bihar shall be applicable in the cases of the petitioners and the State
Sentence Review Board should have considered the 1984 policy and no
other policy which have come into effect after the creation of the State of
Jharkhand. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in terms of
1984 policy the petitioners have completed 14 years in actual custody and
20 years with remission and therefore since the 1984 policy continued to
hold the field till a new policy came into being in 2007 the petitioners are
guided by the earlier policy which ruled the roost even after creation of the
State of Jharkhand in terms of Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act
and therefore the respondents be directed to release the petitioners as they
have completed their respective terms and eligible for being prematurely
released in view of the policy of 1984.
Per contra Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the State submits that
the resolution of the State of Bihar dated 24.02.1984 is not a policy in the
strict sense of the term and the same does not have any statutory force of
law which can be extended to the convicts. He further submits that basically
the memo dated 24.02.1984 is merely a letter and is not a law in terms of
Section 2 (f) and therefore does not have a binding effect on the successor
State of Jharkhand in terms of Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act.
He also submits that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar versus Union of India
and Others reported in AIR (2000) SC 986, consideration for premature
release of a convict can only be arrived at after various factors enumerated
in the said judgment has to be considered and which formed the basis for
issuance of resolution in the year 2007 by the State of Jharkhand.
Submission has been advanced that the petitioners cannot claim as a matter
of right to be released in terms of the 1984 policy after completing 14 years
in custody without remission and 20 years in custody with remission as the
1984 policy did not have a binding effect on the State of Jharkhand and
moreover the various factors enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) has also to be considered which
ultimately led to the subsequent resolution of 2007 of the State of
Jharkhand and by no stretch of imagination the benefit of premature
release to the petitioners can be extended in terms of the 1984 policy and
therefore all these applications are liable to be dismissed. Mr. P.A.S. Pati,
learned counsel for the State by way of referring the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others
v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also observed in that paragraph while deciding the
remission that the concerned authority is required to consider the factors for
remission. According to him, following factors are required to be considered
in the case of remission:
(a) whether the offence was an individual act of crime without
affecting the society at large;
(b) whether there was any chance of future recurrence of
committing a crime;
(c) whether the convict had lost his potentiality in committing the
crime;
(d) whether there was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict
any more;
(e) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family;
(f) any other similar circumstances;
(g) provisions contained in Jail Manual Rules 527 to 529
(particularly) Rule 529; and
(h) opinion of the learned trial court.
The main foundation upon which the arguments of the learned
counsels for the petitioners have been built is the 1984 policy of the State of
Bihar. In order to ascertain as to whether such argument can lead to
construction of an edifice it would be beneficial to refer to the 1984 policy
and briefly translated in English the conditions enumerated in the policy
dated 24.02.1984 reads as follows:-
(i) In terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. the benefit of set
off shall not be given to the convicts which would mean
that the period of custody undergone by a
convict during investigation and trial would not be set
off from 20 years of custody.
(ii) After an accused has been convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment in which one of the sentence includes
a sentence of death and where the death sentence has
been reduced to life imprisonment and where such
sentence has been imposed on or after 18.12.1978 such
convict shall be released provided that;
(a) He has completed 14 years in custody after his
conviction.
(b) The total period completed in custody is 20 years
including remission.
The gist of the resolution noted above would therefore mean that a
convict is entitled for premature release provided he remains in custody for
14 years after his conviction and 20 years including remission.
A subsequent resolution bearing resolution no. 3115 dated
25.05.1985 was issued by the State of Bihar on consideration of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath
v. Administration of Delhi, wherein the benefit of set off and the period
the convict has remained in custody during investigation and trial shall be
adjusted/set off from the period of life imprisonment. Thus it would
ultimately mean that a convict who has completed 14 years of actual
custody and 20 years of custody with remission shall be entitled to
premature release in terms of the policy dated 24.02.1984. Resolution was
taken by the State of Jharkhand dated 18.04.2007 pursuant to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman
Naskar (supra) in which the constitution of the State Sentence Review
Board was formulated and the factors which would entail consideration of
premature release of a convict was also enumerated. This consideration was
made applicable only to those convicts whose case falls u/s 433 (a) of the
Cr.P.C. and who has completed 14 years of actual physical custody and 20
years of custody with remission. Subsequently a resolution dated
10.09.2009 was also issued with respect to a modification in Clause 3 (i) of
the earlier resolution dated 18.04.2007.
Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 reads as follows:-
85. Power to adapt laws.- For the purpose of
facilitating the application in relation to the State of Bihar or
Jharkhand of any law made before the appointed day, the
appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two
years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and
modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and
thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed
or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent
authority.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression
"appropriate Govern-ment" means as respects any law
relating to a matter enumerated in the Union List, the Central
Government, and as respects any other law in its application
to a State, the State Government.
Section 85 thus does not abrogate or seize the enforceability of any
law as was prevailing in the State of Bihar prior to creation of the Successor
State of Jharkhand. Section 2 (f) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act defines law
which reads as under:-
Section 2 (f) "law" includes any enactment, ordinance,
regulation, order, by-law, rule, scheme, notification or other
instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the
force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State
of Bihar.
The resolution dated 24.02.1984 cannot be said to be merely a letter
as the same was the basis for releasing convicts prematurely on the convict
having fulfilled the criteria of remaining in custody for the period denoted in
the same. Thus what was made operative by the State of Bihar w.e.f.
24.02.1984 was a resolution which continued to hold the field till a
resolution was taken by the State of Jharkhand on 18.04.2007. The
conviction of the petitioners was after the 1984 policy came into being and
prior to the policy of the State of Jharkhand dated 18.04.2007 and as such
the case of the petitioners are clearly to be guided by the 1984 policy.
In the case of State of Haryana and Others versus Jagdish
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216, since there was conflicting judgments the
same was referred to a three Judges Bench which held as follows:-
38. In view of the above, it is evident that the
clemency power of the executive is absolute and remains
unfettered for the reason that the provisions contained under
Article 72 or 161 of the Constitution cannot be restricted by
the provisions of Sections 432, 433 and 433-A CrPC though
the authority has to meet the requirements referred to
hereinabove while exercising the clemency power. To say that
clemency power under Articles 72/161 of the Constitution
cannot be exercised by the President or the Governor, as the
case may be, before a convict completes the incarceration
period provided in the short-sentencing policy, even in an
exceptional case, would be mutually inconsistent with the
theory that clemency power is unfettered.
44. Liberty is one of the most precious and cherished
possessions of a human being and he would resist forcefully
any attempt to diminish it. Similarly, rehabilitation and social
reconstruction of a life convict, as objective of punishment
become of paramount importance in a welfare State. "Society
without crime is a utopian theory." The State has to achieve
the goal of protecting the society from the convict and also to
rehabilitate the offender. There is a very real risk of revenge
attack upon the convict from others. Punishment enables the
convict to expiate his crime and assist his rehabilitation. The
remission policy manifests a process of reshaping a person
who, under certain circumstances, has indulged in criminal
activity and is required to be rehabilitated. Objectives of the
punishment are wholly or predominantly reformative and
preventive.
49. This Court in Mahender Singh has taken note of
the provisions of the 1894 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder as well as the relevant paragraphs of the Punjab
Jail Manual. Section 59(5) of the 1894 Act, enables the
Government to frame rules for "award of marks and the
shortening of sentences". The Rules define prisoner as
including a person committed to prison in default of
furnishing security to keep peace or be of good behaviour.
The Rules further provide for classification of prisoners
according to the intensity and gravity of the offence.
According to the classification of prisoners, Class 1 prisoners
are those who had committed heinous organised crimes or
specially dangerous criminals. Class 2 prisoners include
dacoits or persons who commit heinous organised crimes.
Class 3 prisoners are those who do not fall within Class 1 or
Class 2. Rule 20 thereof provides that life convict being a
Class 1 prisoner if earned such remission as entitles him to
release, the Superintendent shall report accordingly to the
local Government with a view to the passing of orders under
Section 401 CrPC. Rule 21 provides that save as provided by
Rule 20, when a prisoner has earned such remission as
entitles him to release, the Superintendent shall release him.
The instant case falls in Class 3, not being a case of
organised crime or by professionals or hereditary or specially
dangerous criminals.
50. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid Rules are applicable in
Haryana in view of the States Reorganisation Act. These are
statutory rules, not merely executive instructions.
Therefore, a "lifer" has a right to get his case
considered within the parameters laid down therein.
53. The right of the respondent prisoner, therefore, to
get his case considered on a par with such of his inmates,
who were entitled to the benefit of the said policy, cannot be
taken away by the policy dated 13-8-2008. This is evident
from a bare perusal of the recitals contained in the policies
prior to the year 2008, which are referable to Article 161 of
the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion,
was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that the
case of the respondent was to be considered on the strength
of the policy that was existing on the date of his conviction.
54. The State authority is under an obligation to at
least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest
expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his
conviction that his case for premature release would be
considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the short-
sentencing policy existing on that date. The State has to
exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such
benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which
may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our
opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case,
was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy
prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a "lifer"
for premature release, he should be given benefit thereof.
Thus in the case of Jagdish (supra) it was categorically laid down that
the policy which was prevailing on the date of consideration for premature
release of a life convict the benefit of the same should be given to the
convict.
In the case of Union of India versus V. Sriharan alias Murgan
and Others reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 121 (SC) the Constitution Bench
held as follows:-
236. The power under Sections 432/433 CrPC and the
one exercisable under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution,
as laid down in Maru Ram (supra) are streams flowing in the
same bed. Both seek to achieve salutary purpose. As
observed in Kehar Singh (supra) in clemency jurisdiction it is
permissible to examine whether the case deserves the grant
of relief and cut short the sentence in exercise of Executive
Power which abridges the enforcement of a judgment.
Clemency jurisdiction would normally be exercised in the
exigencies of the case and fact situation as obtaining when
the occasion to exercise the power arises. Any order putting
the punishment beyond remission will prohibit, exercise of
statutory power designed to achieve same purpose under
Sections 432/433 CrPC. In our view, Courts cannot and ought
not deny to a prisoner the benefit to be considered for
remission of sentence. By doing so, the prisoner would be
condemned to live in the prison till the last breath without
there being even a ray of hope to come out. This stark reality
will not be conducive to reformation of the person and will in
fact push him into a dark hole without there being semblance
of the light at the end of the tunnel.
238. The law on the point of life imprisonment as laid
down in Godse's case (supra) is clear that life
imprisonment means till the end of one's life and that by very
nature the sentence is indeterminable. Any fixed term
sentence characterised as minimum which must be
undergone before any remission could be considered, cannot
affect the character of life imprisonment but such direction
goes and restricts the exercise of power of remission before
the expiry of such stipulated period. In essence, any such
direction would increase or expand the statutory period
prescribed under Section 433-A of Cr.P.C. Any such stipulation
of mandatory minimum period inconsistent with the one in
Section 433-A, in our view, would not be within the powers of
the Court.
Our answer to Sub Question (b) of Question in
para 52.1 is:
Question b: Whether as per the principles enunciated
in paragraphs 91 to 93 of Swamy Shraddananda (2), a
special category of sentence may be made for the very few
cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the
punishment for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category
beyond application of remission?
Answer. In our view, it would not be open to the
Court to make any special category of sentence in substitution
of death penalty and put that category beyond application of
remission, nor would it be permissible to stipulate any
mandatory period of actual imprisonment inconsistent with
the one prescribed under Section 433-A of Cr.P.C.
It was held that the Courts cannot and ought not deny to a prisoner
the benefit to be considered for remission of sentence.
The 1984 policy was under consideration by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.
40 of 2011 in which it was held that the policy decision of 1984 remained
operative till the new policy was framed in the year 2007 by the State of
Jharkhand and thereafter a direction was given to the State Sentence
Review Board to consider the case of the said convict for his premature
release in light of the policy decision of 1984. The said order was affirmed
up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In batch of cases being W.P. (Cr.) No. 262 of 2014 and analogous
cass, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioners of those
cases shall be guided by the 1984 policy and no other and therefore all
those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
consider the case of those petitioners for premature release strictly on the
basis of 1984 policy dated 28.02.1984.
Identical matter numbered as W.P. (Cr.) No. 32 of 2011 travelled up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No.5696 of 2012.
In view of these facts, there is no doubt that the case of the
petitioners are required to be considered for premature release strictly on
the basis of 1984 policy dated 28.02.1984. The coordinate Bench of this
Court has not discussed paragraph 46 of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish (supra). Paragraph 46 of
the said judgment is quoted herein below:
46. At the time of considering the case of premature
release of a life convict, the authorities may require to
consider his case mainly taking into consideration whether
the offence was an individual act of crime without affecting
the society at large; whether there was any chance of future
recurrence of committing a crime; whether the convict had
lost his potentiality in committing the crime; whether there
was any fruitful purpose of confining the convict any more;
the socio-economic condition of the convict's family and other
similar circumstances.
In view of the above facts, these matters are remitted back to the
Jharkhand State Sentence Review Board to consider in light of the judgment
passed by the coordinate Bench and in the case of Jagdish (supra) and
pass a fresh order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, these writ applications stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
