Judgment:
M.L. Visa, J.
1. Heard earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 has not appeared in spite of service of notice.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ or writs commanding the respondents and asking them as to why respondent No. 4 has been released from jail custody without completion of sentence passed against him and directing the respondents to take respondent No. 4 in custody for the remaining period of his sentences.
4. The facts, in brief, of the matter giving rise to this application are that Triveni Singh (respondent No. 4) was an accused in Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 63 of 1988 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act (Annexure-1) in which after investigation charge-sheet against respondent No. 4 and others was submitted and after trial seven accused-persons including respondent No. 4 were held guilty and convicted and sentenced by the trial Court undergo imprisonment for life. The appeals preferred by respondent No. 4 and other convict persons were dismissed by this Court as well as by the apex Court. The prayer of respondent No. 4 for bail during the pendency of the appeal was also refused by the apex Court. The further case of petitioner is that in spite of dismissal of appeal of respondent No. 4 by the apex Court against his conviction, respondent No. 4 has been released from jail much prior to completion of his sentence in spite of the fact that his prayer for bail has been refused by the apex Court. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 managed the official respondents and got his release much earlier than completion of the period of his sentence. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to take respondent No. 4 in custody and sending him to jail for completing his remaining period of his sentence.
5. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been filed admitting therein that respondent No. 4 should have been released on 10.2.2004 but he has been released on 30.1.1998 and his release is premature but according to respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 has been released by Incharge Jailor Surya Nath Singh without bringing the aforesaid fact to the notice of Superintendent of Central Jail, Beur where respondent No. 4 was confined and when this fact was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 he called for an explanation from Surya Nath Singh who has now been put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. It has been submitted that direction to Superintendent, Central Jail, Beur for taking effective steps for re-arrest of respondent No. 4 has already been issued.
6. Surya Nath Singh, who was Incharge Jailor of Central Jail, Beur where respondent No. 4 was confined, has appeared as an intervenor and has also filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that by an order issued under the signature of Law Department, Government of Bihar, which was circulated to all concerned officials it was notified that the persons awarded sentences of imprisonment of life who had spent 16 years in Jail including the period covered by remission should be released by granting them special remission on account of Golden Jubilee Year of Independence of the country (Annexure-B/1) and in this order, it was nowhere mentioned that prisoners convicted for life who had not undergone actual custody of 14 years should not be released. It has further been stated that since this notification created confusion in the minds of different authorities of Jail Department, the then Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur sought clarification from respondent No. 3 who on his turn sought clarification from the Law Department and the Law Department returned the file to Home (Jail Department), Government of Bihar, agreeing with the office notes wherein it was mentioned that the prisoners convicted for life who had remained in Jail for 16 years including remission could be released in spite of their not having remained in actual custody for 14 years. This notification of Law Department was communicated to respondent No. 3 (Annexure-C/1). According to the intervenor, Jail authorities of all the Jails of the State of Bihar after being informed about the order dated 13.8.1997 and its subsequent clarification by respondent No. 3 started releasing the prisoners who had been awarded imprisonment for life and had completed 16 years in Jail custody including remission by virtue of special remission granted to such prisoners on account of Golden Jubilee of Independence of the country. The further case of the intervenor is that Jail Superintendent who has sworn affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 was in full knowledge of the release of respondent No. 4 as he had signed the release diary (Ext. A/1) and it is not correct statement on his behalf that respondent No. 4 was released by the intervenor without his information.
7. In this application, the prayer of petitioner is for direction to the official respondents to take steps for re-arrest of respondent No. 4 for completion of remaining period of his sentence. Respondent No. 3, as stated above, in his counter-affidavit has stated that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Beur has been ordered to take steps for re-arrest of respondent No. 4. It has further been stated that the then Incharge Jailor of Central Jail, Beur who was responsible for the premature release of respondent No. 4 has been put under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry. So far the submission of entervenor who was, at the relevant time, posted as Incharge Jailor, Central Jail, Beur that respondent No. 4 has been released under some confusion of Government Circular and within full knowledge of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Beur, is concerned, in this application filed by petitioner this Court is not required to fix up responsibility on the person or persons who was/were responsible for premature release of respondent No. 4 from Jail custody. It is open for the intervenor to plead his case in the departmental inquiry. In the present application, the only prayer of petitioner is for direction to the official respondents for re-arrest of respondent No. 4 for which the official respondents have already taken steps. In this view of the matter, no further order is required to be passed. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, XIV, Patna from whose Court respondent No. 4 was convicted and sentenced is also directed to take all steps for arrest of respondent No. 4 and for sending him to Jail custody for completing the period of remaining sentence.
8. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.