Jharkhand High Court
Fahim Khan vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(Cr.) No. 81 of 2020
----
Fahim Khan, aged about 65 years, son of late Safique Khan, resident of
Kamar Makdami Road, Waseypur, P.O.Dhanbad, P.S.Bank More, Dhanbad,
District Dhanbad, PIN-826 001 ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District Ranchi
2.Inspector General of Prison-cum-Chairman, State Sentence Review
Board, having its office at T.A.Building, Near Dhurwa, Golchakkar, PO and
PS Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District Ranchi
3.Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, PO and PS Ghaghidih,
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum ...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
----
5/30.11.2021 This writ petition has been filed for issuance of an
appropriate direction upon the respondents to consider premature
release of the petitioner from the jail custody.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.122 of 1990. Pursuant to
conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 302 IPC in
connection with Sessions Trial No.122 of 1990, petitioner is in jail custody
and the petitioner has undergone a total sentence of more than 14 years
till today. That in terms of the 1984 Policy of the State Government, the
petitioner is entitled to premature release from custody, but till date the
State Sentence Review Board has not taken any decision in the matter.
3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned State counsel has
submitted that the report of the District Judge is required by the State
Sentence Review Board for taking a decision on premature release of the
petitioner. He further submits that the case of the present petitioner is
not a fit case even to send proposal to the State Sentence Review Board
because of the petitioner has completed only a period of 14 years 3
months 19 days without remission and a period of 15 years 7 months 8
days including remission.
4. Heard. Perused the Policy of 1984 and Policy of 2007. In
both the policies it is not stipulated that the Sentence Review Board has
to decide the matter after receipt of report from the Sessions Judge.
Admittedly in Sessions Trial No.122 of 1990 the judgment of conviction
was pronounced in 15.06.1991 by this Court. The policy of 1984 was
applicable at that time for premature release of a prisoner. The question
as to whether the 1984 policy or 2007 policy will be applicable has been
well settled on elaborate discussion of the question in plethora of writ
applications and direction has been issued to consider the premature
release of a prisoner in terms of the policy in operation on the date of
judgment of conviction. Consequently, any elaborate discussion on the
aforesaid issue will only be a reiteration of the settled principle.
5. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the discussions
made hereinabove the respondents shall consider the prayer for
premature release of the petitioner on the basis of the policy as
applicable on the date. It is expected of the State Authorities to make
endeavours for holding the meeting of the State Sentence Review Board
for taking a decision on the question of the premature release of the
petitioner in accordance with law at the earliest.
6. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition [W.P.(Cr.)
No. 81 of 2020] stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
