Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Mehta @ Mukesh Mehta @ Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.555 of 2024
------
Mukesh Kumar Mehta @ Mukesh Mehta @ Mahto, aged about- 44
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. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
3. Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate, Government of
Jharkhand, Engineers Hostel, Gol Chakar, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa,
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Superintendent, Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, P.O.- Reformatory School, Kolghatti, P.S.- Losinghna,
District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand ... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG
Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to quash the part of notification, the copy of which has
been annexed as Annexure-6 of this writ Petition, wherein the claim of the
premature release of the petitioner was rejected by the Jharkhand State
Sentence Review Board at Serial No.17 as contained in Notification No.-
11/bandi vividh-05/2021-464 dated 25.01.2024 and further to give direction to
the respondents to consider the claim of the premature release of the petitioner
as per the Premature Release Policy prevailing on the date of conviction of the
petitioner i.e. 1984 policy as contained in Law Department vide Letter
No.A/PM.03/81-550 dated 21.01.1984 issued by the Secretary of Law
Department, Government of Bihar; which was subsequently amended on
25.05.1985 and then in the year 2007, a new policy was laid down for premature
release of life convict prisoners and the petitioner was convicted on 21.12.2004.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was convicted by the
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C) V, Hazaribagh vide S.T. No.217 of 2003
corresponding to G.R. Case No.2907 of 2001 arising out of Ichak P.S. Case
No.128 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty for the
offence punishable under Sections 364A, 302/34, 323/34, 376/34, 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to death under Section 364A,
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
on each count. The petitioner was separately sentenced to undergo one-year
rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life
under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
with a default sentence of six months. In respect of conviction under Section
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of
one-year. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.60 of 2005 challenging
his conviction and sentence before this Court and the Division Bench of this
Court while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 364A,
323, 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code; set aside the death sentence
and reduced it to life imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment imposed
upon the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 323/34
of the Indian Penal Code, was confirmed with a direction that the substantive
sentence shall run concurrently but keeping in view the fact that the doctor
who was examined as P.W.7 during the trial and the doctor who was examined
as P.W.1- who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, have stated in their
evidence that they could not give any definite opinion about rape of the
deceased girl; acquitted the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section
376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated
23.01.2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is
lodged in Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh and has
completed actual custody in jail for 22 years 05 months and 21 days and has
also earned remission of 07 years 06 months and 24 days and with remission,
total custody comes out to 30 years 00 months and 15 days till 02.06.2024.
Hence, it is submitted that his premature release should be considered in the
light of 1984 policy where no other condition has been laid down for premature
release except that the petitioner should serve only 14 years in actual and 20
years with remission. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the
instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed as the said rejection of the premature
release of the petitioner is not in terms of 1984 policy.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand places on
the record, the copy of the Letter No.5/C No.04/2003-3676 of the Department
of Home, Government of Jharkhand dated 18.08.2003 and submits that the
undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was convicted by a trial court, on
21.12.2004 and order of sentence was passed on 23.12.2004. So, the matter of
premature release of the petitioner should be considered in terms of the said
Letter Dated 18.08.2003 which has been issued in terms of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of
India & Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 986. Hence, it is submitted that there
is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the premature release of the
petitioner is to be considered in terms of 1984 policy and the same has no legs
to stand and that being the only ground made in this Writ Petition (Cr.); this
Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that in
view of the Letter Dated 18.08.2003 of the Department of Home, Government of
Jharkhand, the release of the convicts who have been sentenced inter alia to life
imprisonment, is to be considered as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India &
Others (supra) and the Letter Dated 18.08.2003 issued by the Department of
Home, Government of Jharkhand is in terms of the said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and not by the 1984 policy, therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Writ Petition (Cr.)
and this Court also do not find any illegality in the said impugned Notification
dated 25.01.2004 on the ground that the same was not considered in the light of
1984 policy.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is
dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of March, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
