Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Shukla vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2023
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 22019 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI RAM SHIROMANI
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX
CONSTABLE BORDER SECURITY FORCE VILLAGE AND
POST SIRMAUR DIST REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRIYANK AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
HOME GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY
FORCE NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. DEPUTY COMMANDANT (LAW) FOR CHIEF LAW
O F F I C E R BORDER SECURITY FORCE (LAW
BRANCH) NEW DELHI (DELHI)
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL DIST.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
UNION OF INDIA)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition 226 of Constitution of India
challenging order dated 08.09.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:45:02 AM
2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that order dated 08.09.2021
is arbitrary. As per judgment passed by Apex court in the case of Sharafat Ali
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
193, policy which was in existence on the date of conviction of petitioner,
ought to have been considered by authorities. There is no such policy and on
what basis, application for premature release has been rejected, is not clear. It is
further submitted that as per judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Satish
@ Sabbe Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791, factors
which are to be considered for premature release of a convict is : (i)
antecedents ; (ii) conduct of a convict during incarceration and (iii) likelihood to
abstain from crime. It is submitted that there is complete go by to these factors
and policy which was in existence. In view of same, order dated 08.09.2021 is
arbitrary and same deserves to be set-aside.
3. Counsel appearing for petitioner further relied on paragraph-14 to 16
of judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Zahid Hussein & Ors. Vs.
State of W.B. & Another reported in (2001) 3 SCC 750 . It is submitted
that in said paragraphs, it has been held by Apex Court that conduct of
petitioner while in jail is an important factor to be considered, it has also been
stated that possibility of involvement of petitioner in anti-social activities is to be
taken into consideration. Counsel for petitioner also relied on another judgment
of Apex Court in the case of Laxman Naskar Vs. Union of India & Ors
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 595. It is submitted that in paragarph-7 & 8 of said
judgment, it has been held by Apex court that in police report, all the points
should have been considered for for premature release of 'life convict'. Further
reliance is placed in Paragraph 16 & 18 of judgment rendered in the case of
Ram Chander Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another 2022 SCC OnLine
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:45:02 AM
SC 500. It is submitted that in aforesaid, Apex Court has held that
government's decision to reject the claim of remission was based on irrelevant
consideration and devoid of substance, therefore, Apex Court has considered
the case.
4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India
submitted that a well reasoned order has been passed by competent authority.
He further placed reliance on an order issued by Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India Directorate General Border Security Force dated 15.09.2022. It
is submitted that as per said order, following convicts are not eligible for
remission :
i) Prisoners having substantive sentence of less than two months;
ii) Prisoners sentenced in default of payment of fine only;
iii) Prisoners whose sentence is reduced to less than two months (in
such cases remission already earlier, if any, should stand forfeited).
iv) In the case of prisoners, who are convicted of an offence committed
after admission to the prison under Sections 147/ 148/ 152/ 224/ 302/ 304/
304A/ 306/ 307/ 308/ 323/ 324/ 325/ 326/ 332/ 352/ 353 or 377 of IPC or of
an assault committed after admission to the prison on a warder or other
officer or under any other law for misusing the concession of parole/furlough
granted under the law. The remissions of whatever kind earned by him under
these rules up to the date of the said conviction may, with the sanction of
Head of the Prison Department, be cancelled.
v) Prisoners debarred from remission as punishment for committing
prescribed prison offences
vi) Prisoners specifically debarred from remission under any law or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:45:02 AM
rule; and
vii) Prisoners out on special leave like medical leave, temporary release
on parole, release on bail etc. for the duration of such leave.
5. It is submitted that case of petitioner falls within Clause 18.08 (v) dated
15.09.2022. Offence committed by petitioner is grave. Learned Assistant
Solicitor General further placed reliance on paragraph-20 of judgment in
S.T.No.99/2018, which reads as under :
**20- izdj.k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih iwoZ ls vU; izdj.k esa ltk Hkqxr jgk Fkk
vkSj mDr ltk Hkqxrus ds nkSjku isjksy ij NwVus ds ckn vkjksih Qjkj gks x;k FkkA mijksDr
ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vkjksih eukst dqekj 'kqDyk dks vkjksih vf/k- dh /kkjk 31Â ¼?
k ½ ds vkjksi esa nks o"kZ dk lJe dkjkokl o [email protected]& :i;s ds vFkZn aM ls nafMr fd;k
tkrk gSA vFkZnaM dh jkf'k vnk u fd;s tkus ij ,d ekg dk lJe dkjkokl i`Fkd ls Hkqxrk;k
tkosA**
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. So far as judgement rendered by Apex Court in the case of Zahid
Hussein & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable in case of the
petitioner as conduct of petitioner was taken into consideration, though jail
authorities had stated that conduct was good but when petitioner was released
on bail, he had committed murder of a civilian but he has been acquitted. This
conduct has been taken into consideration. Judgment rendered in the case of
Laxman Naskar (supra) is also not applicable in case of the petitioner, as in
that case, rejection was made only on ground of objection by Police which is
non-existent in this case. Judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of
Ram Chander (supra) is also not applicable in the case of petitioner.
8. From perusal of Clause-18.08 (v) (supra), it is clear that offence
committed by petitioner is grave. He is involved in double murder of colleagues
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:45:02 AM
and while undergoing jail sentence, he jumped parole and was also involved in
murder of civilian, though acquitted. On going through the said order, it is clear
that order, which has been passed by Director General of B.S.F. is will
reasoned order. He has taken all factors into consideration i.e. heinous crime,
conduct in jail & jump of parole.This Court will not examine merit of order but
the procedure adopted for reaching the decision. Order dated 08.09.2021 is not
arbitrary in nature and no irregularity is found in procedure, which vitiates
impugned order.
9. In view of same, Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETI TIWARI
Signing time: 1/25/2023
11:45:02 AM
