Jharkhand High Court
Binod Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 8 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(Cr.) No. 27 of 2023
----
Binod Mahli .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Rinku Bhakat, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
----
5/08.11.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the part of
decision of the State Sentence Review Board dated 20.10.2022 by Memo
No.11/Prison/2021/4265 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary,
Home and Prison, Government of Jharkhand whereby the claim of the
petitioner for premature release was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner has committed a heinous crime.
2. Mrs. Rinku Bhakat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offence
under section 302 I.P.C by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in
S.T. No.470 of 2003 by judgment dated 21.06.2004. The petitioner has
moved in Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No.1353 of 2004 and by the judgment dated
21.07.2015 the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed. She submits that the
petitioner is in custody for 19 years 9 months and 15 days and 28 years
5 months at the time of filing of the present petition. She submits that
the said occurrence took place on 13.06.2005 and at that time, the 1984
policy of remission of the Government was there. She submits that now
Government of Jharkhand has come forward with a separate policy in the
year 2007. She submits that in the impugned decision it is not disclosed
on the basis of which policy the case of the petitioner has been
considered. She submits that this aspect of the matter has been
considered by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 decided by judgment
dated 19.10.2022 and further in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of
Jharkhand [W.P.(Cr.) No.81 of 2022 dated 10.10.2023]. The
decision is not taken in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000)
7 SCC 626.
3. Mr. P.C. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent State submits that the case of the petitioner is rightly
considered by the Sentence Review Board and was rejected and the
petitioner has committed a grave offence and as such, the remission
order may not be quashed by this Court.
4. In W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 it has already been decided that
at the time of crime the policy which was in operation that will prevail
and on the basis of that policy, the remission is required to be considered
by the Government and in the case in hand, it is not disclosed as to
under what policy the case of the petitioner has been considered. Further
in the case of Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra), the
guidelines were as under:
(i) Whether the offence affects the society at large;
(ii) The probability of the crime being repeated;
(iii) The potential of the convict to commit crime in
future;
(iv) If any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the
convict in prison; and
(v) The socio-economic condition of the convict's family.
5. Any sentence review is required to be considered
considering the above guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. It appears that by the impugned order this aspect of the
matter has not been taken care of and in view of that, this matter is
remitted back to the respondent authority who will take a fresh decision
in light of the above discussion and further looking into the judgment of
Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra), as well as the
judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 and W.P.(Cr.)
No.81 of 2022.
7. The said exercise shall be taken place within twelve weeks
from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
8. W.P.(Cr.) No. 27 of 2023 is disposed of.
9. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
