A writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted if detention is based on lawful conviction despite ongoing judicial proceedings.

1. The petitioner in the instant case is a history sheeter involved in many criminal cases in the State. After trial conducted against him in those cases, he has been found guilty in five different independent cases before different Courts in the State of Chhattisgarh ranging from life imprisonment to RI for a minimum period of six months.

2. The petitioner herein is seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his alleged illegal detention substantially on the ground that though he is a convict in five different crimes committed by him in the State of Chhattisgarh, so far as the case in which he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment is concerned, he has already got bail by the High Court and in the other four cases he has either completed the period of sentence or the sentence part has been reduced by the High Court in different appeals to the period already undergone. Therefore, any further detention of his in jail will amount to illegal detention. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be freed. However, the Respondent Authorities, it is alleged of overlooking the judgments of the Court and without any justification, explanation or rhyme or reason, have not released the Petitioner.

3. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, since the conviction and sentence in four out of five criminal cases has been either completed or reduced to the period already undergone and in the fifth case, the petitioner has already got bail, there is no need whatsoever for further detention of the petitioner. Thus, the detention part without any reason can be termed to be an illegal detention requiring intervention of this Court by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General at the outset raised an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition pointing towards the reply filed by the State Government specifically mentioning the reasons for not releasing the Petitioner from jail. According to the Additional Advocate General, in a petition for habeas corpus, the person who has detained the detainee is called upon to explain and justify the detention. In other words, if there is an allegation of illegal detention, the person who has detained or the person under whose authority the person has been confined has to give an explanation to the Court; firstly, his authority and, secondly that the detention / confinement is by virtue of an administrative decision or for that matter a judicial pronouncement. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the detention of the Petitioner cannot be said to be illegal for the reason that the Petitioner in one case i.e. Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2007 out of five criminal cases in which he has been convicted has not completed the jail sentence of seven years. In the said case, he has been convicted for the offence under S.224, S.328 and S.120 - B of IPC and the date of conviction is only 15-07-2011. Thereafter he had preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2015 against the said judgment of conviction which was also dismissed by the High Court on 2-9-2015.

5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the observations made by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2015 so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the same would not come to his aid for the reason that the Petitioner would have to establish before this Court by showing that in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2007 he, in fact, has undergone the entire period of seven years. Learned State Counsel submitted that the Petitioner cannot take advantage of his jail sentence that he has undergone in other criminal cases for computing t