Vijay Singh S/O Shri Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2982 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 789/2021

Vijay Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, R/o Village Gola, Police Station
Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined in Central
Jail Ajmer) through his Grandson Yadu Dev Singh S/o Shri Kuber
Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Gola, Police Station
Mangaliyawas, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Raj.)

                                                                     ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

1.      State   of   Rajasthan,        through        its    Principal   Secretary,
        Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.      The Director General, Directorate Prison Rajasthan Jaipur.

3.      The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer (Raj.)

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

Date of Order : 16th July, 2021

Per : (Chandra Kumar Songara, J.) :

Instant writ petition under Articles 226, 14, 19 & 21 of the

Constitution of India and under Section 315 (H) of the Rajasthan High

Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred on behalf of the convict/

petitioner, namely Vijay Singh praying therein that the order dated

26.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, whereby

he has rejected the application for pre-mature release of the petitioner

under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006

(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 2006), be quashed and

set aside. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to

(2 of 5) [CRLW-789/2021]

shorten the sentence of the petitioner and release him, as per the Rules

of 2006.

In the present case, notices were ordered to be issued to

the respondents. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the

respondents.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer, vide its

judgment dated 03.08.2004, in Sessions Case No.104/2003 for offences

punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment and now he is serving his sentence in the

Central Jail, Ajmer. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has

served more than eight-years including period of remission of his

sentence. Thus, he has served more than 2/3rd part of his sentence.

Therefore, he is entitled for shortening of his sentence, as per Rules 8

(1) (iv) & 9 of the Rules of 2006. Counsel also submits that the

petitioner is eighty-two years old and is suffering from various diseases,

therefore, as per Rule 8 (vi) of the Rules of 2006, he is entitled for

shortening of his sentence. Counsel contends that vide order dated

26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) the respondent No.3/Superintendent, Central

Jail, Ajmer has rejected the application of the petitioner regarding pre-

mature release mentioning therein that the eligibility period for pre-

mature release is fourteen-years of served original sentence and two

years & six months of remission. Lastly, counsel submits that the

aforesaid order dated 26.02.2021 may be quashed and set aside and

the respondents be directed to shorten the sentence of the petitioner

and pre-maturely release him.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

(3 of 5) [CRLW-789/2021]

submits that the petitioner has served total period of sentence upto

18.05.2021 i.e. 07 years 09 months and 29 days. Counsel further

submits that according to the Rule 8 (1) of the Rules of 2006, the

eligibility for release on pre-mature basis is after completion of

fourteen-years of sentence and earned remission of 02 years and 06

months but the petitioner has not attained the eligibility, as per Rules of

2006. Hence, his application has rightly been rejected.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the material made available on record.

The order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the

respondent No.3/ Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, reads as under :-

ÞAAdk;kZy; v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjkx`g] vtesjAA

Øekad % [email protected]@[email protected]&58 fnukad 26-02-2021

&% dk;kZy; vkns'k %&

Jh ;nqnso flag flg iq= Jh dqcsj flag fuoklh xzke xksyk iqfylFkkuk ekaxfy;kokl ftyk vtesj ds }kjk v?kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks lacksf/kr djrs gq;s ,d izkFkZuk i= tfj;s jftLVMZ Mkd bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dj bl dkjkx`g ds nf.Mr canh fot; flag iq= izrkiflag tkfr jktiwr fuoklh [kjok ¼xksyk½ iqfyl Fkkuk ekaxfy;kokl ftyk vtesj ds laca/k esa o`)koLFkk ds dkj.k dbZ fcekjh;ksa ls xzflr gksus o vka[kks ls de fn[kkbZ nsus o fcuk fdlh lgkjs ds fuR;deZ djus esa vleFkZ gksus ds dkj.k o 08 o"kZ dh ltk e; ifjgkj Hkqxr fy;s tksus ds QyLo:i canh dks jktLFkku fiztUl ¼'kkVZfuax vkWQ lsUVsUlst½ :Yl 2006 ds fu;e 8 ds mifu;e 6 vuqlkj le; iwoZ fjgkbZ gsrq izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA

mDr canh bl dkjkx`g esa vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkqxr jgk gSa] jktLFkku fiztUl ¼'kkVZfuax vkWQ lsUVsUlst½ :Yl 2006 ds fu;e & 8 ds vuqlkj le; iwoZ fjgkbZ gsrq ik=rk vof/k 14 o"kZ ewy ltk Hkqxr fy;s tkus o 02 o"kZ 06 ekg vftZr ifjgkj izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh canh dk le; iwoZ fjgkbZ izdj.k lykgkdkj lfefr ds le{k fopkjkFkZ gsrq is'k fd;k tkrk gSA

;g gS fd jktLFkku fiztUl ¼'kkVZfuax vkWQ lsUVsUlst½ :Yl 2006 ds fu;e & 8 ds vuqlkj canh fot; flag iq= izrki flag }kjk le; iwoZ fjgkbZ gsrq ik=rk vftZr ugha djus ds dkj.k canh dk le; iwoZ fjgkbZ izdj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

v/kh{kd

dsUnzh; dkjkx`g vtesjß

(4 of 5) [CRLW-789/2021]

Rules 8 (1) (i) (ii) (iv) (vi) & 8 (2) (i) of the Rules of 2006,

read as under :-

"8. Prisoners eligibility for consideration by the advisory Board.- (1)The Advisor Board may consider the cases of the following type of prisoners only:-

(i) a prisoner undergoing a substantive sentence of five years or over, and who has completed two thirds of imprisonment, including remission;

(ii) a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or for more than 14 years, and who has served 2/3rd of his sentence excluding remission or 13 years 4 months of imprisonment including remission) whichever is less. The period of imprisonment shall include sentence in default of payment of fine, if the same has not been paid;

(iii) ........................

(iv) Prisoners suffering from fatal diseases like cancer, AIDS, or infectious diseases, such as leprosy; provided their disease is likely to be dangerous to other prisoners and conditions prescribed in rule 7 are fulfilled;

(v) .......................

(vi) Prisoners who have attained the age of 70 years in case of male prisoners and 65 years in case of women prisoners and who have completed at least one third of their sentence, and in whose case no public interest is likely to be served by keeping them in prison, provided they are serving sentences for their first and only conviction.

8. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1)

(i) a prisoner who has been sentenced-to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced. to death but his sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn ["a minimum of 2 years and 6 months of remission in order to be eligible for consideration." shall be substituted.

(ii) ......................................."

In the present case, the petitioner is undergoing sentence in

Sessions Case No.104/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections

302/149, 148, 429/149 & 307/149 of I.P.C. and 3/25 of Arms Act for

life imprisonment with a fine vide judgment dated 28.05.2005 passed

by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer. He has

(5 of 5) [CRLW-789/2021]

served total period of sentence of 07 years 09 months and 29 days up

till 18.05.2021 (Annexure-R/1).

It is worthwhile to mention here that for the offence

punishable under Sections 302/149 of I.P.C., penalty of death is one of

the punishments provided under the law.

Submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is

that the case of the present petitioner falls under the provisions of Rules

8 (1) (iv) (vi) & 9 of the Rules of 2006, whereas Rule 8 (2) (i) of the

Rules of 2006 provides that a prisoner, who has been sentenced to

imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of

the punishments provided by law, shall be considered only after he has

served fourteen-years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but

including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or

trial. Hence, we do not find any force in the submission made by

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for pre-mature release of

the petitioner under the said Rules.

In view of aforesaid provisions of the Rules 8 (1) & 8 (2) of

the Rules of 2006 and above discussions, no case is made out to set

aside the order dt. 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer.

Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of any force, is

hereby dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

ASHOK/19

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)