IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Anil Kumar @ Anil Mahto S/o Punit Mahto – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) Nos. 13, 14, 21, 22 of 2021, 73, 85, 221, 269, 270, 294, 297 of 2020
Decided On : 30-11-2021
Premature Release - Convicts' Petitions - Sections 364, 302, 201/34, 302/34, 376G, 394, 380, 449, 364A, 387/34, 364A, 387/34, 302/34, 376(2)(g), 201, 364A, 302, 323, 376, 201, 34 - The court discussed the 1984 policy for premature release of convicts and its applicability, the subsequent policy of 2007, and the factors to be considered for premature release. The court held that the 1984 policy remained operative till the new policy was framed in 2007 and directed the State Sentence Review Board to consider the convicts' cases for premature release strictly on the basis of the 1984 policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and sought premature release, which was rejected by the State Sentence Review Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1984 policy for premature release of convicts remained operative till the new policy was framed in 2007 and directed the State Sentence Review Board to consider the convicts' cases for premature release strictly on the basis of the 1984 policy.
Issues: Applicability of the 1984 policy for premature release, consideration of factors for premature release, and the effect of subsequent policies on convicts' cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1984 policy for premature release of convicts remained operative till the new policy was framed in 2007 and directed the State Sentence Review Board to consider the convicts' cases for premature release strictly on the basis of the 1984 policy.
Final Decision: The matters were remitted back to the Jharkhand State Sentence Review Board to consider the convicts' cases for premature release in light of the 1984 policy and pass a fresh order within three months.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Mr. P.C. Sinha, Ms. Rashmi Lal and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these writ applications, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the State Sentence Review Board.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 14 of 2021
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-07/2019-2987, dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 403 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No. 1653 of 2001 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 201 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 07.03.2006 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 481 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.01.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board but vide notification dated 20.08.2020 which is impugned to the present application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ application had completed 15 years 7 months and 15 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the petitioner was 21 years 7 months and 15 days as on 18.12.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 73 of 2020
7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-07/2019-352, dated 21.01.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary of Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.
8. The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 12 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 302/34, 376G, 394 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 19.05.2004 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
9. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1549 of 2004, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.2016. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board but vide notification dated 21.01.2020 which is impugned to the present application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ application had completed 15 years 11 months and 4 days of actual custody and with remission the custody of the petitioner was 22 years 1 month and 9 days as on 22.02.2020.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 85 of 2020
10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification No. 11/bandi vividh-07/2019-352, dated 21.01.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary of Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the claim of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected.
11. The facts enumerated in the present writ application is that the petitioner was convicted by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with S.T. No. 20 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 302, 380, 449 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 15.05.2006 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
12. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1164 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.06.2017. The matter was placed before the State Sentence Review Board but vide notification dated 21.01.2020 which is impugned to the present application the prayer for premature release was rejected. The petitioner at the
Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India and Others
The discretion to suspend or remit the sentence lies with the State Government, but the decision must be in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. The opinion of the Presiding Judge must fulfill ....
The court mandated the reconsideration of a convict's premature release proposal, emphasizing rehabilitation, age, and new evidence over the initial decision to reject it based on the severity of the....
The policy in effect at the time of conviction must be the primary consideration for determining premature release, unless a more liberal policy is subsequently adopted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.