A convict is entitled to be released from custody if they have already served the maximum term of the sentence imposed by the court, subject to the payment of any fines awarded.

ORAL ORDER

7 03-02-2026 The present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 41/2022, G.R. No. 215 of 2018, T.R. No. 1009/2022 arising out of Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 90/2018 for the offences registered under Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the IPC whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial court under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act to that of SI for two years in place of three years of RI.

02. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Learned trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offences under Section 26 of the Arms Act and on default of payment the fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. At appellate stage, the learned Appellate Court of Additional District Judge-V, Samastipur modified the sentence awarded with respect to the offences punishable under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and reduced it to simple imprisonment of two years instead of three years of rigorous imprisonment while affirming the other parts of the order and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submits that the petitioner has remained in custody from 24.04.2018 to 06.12.2018 as an under trial and thereafter from 13.09.2024 till date after conviction. Therefore, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years. Hence, the matter has become infructuous as the petitioner has already served the sentenced period. The learned counsel prays for release of the petitioner.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana , Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026 has held as follows:

“We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”

5. However, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , 1(2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

“11. Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.‟);

b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified s