Neelu Alias Rajendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1044362
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-19-2013
AppellantNeelu Alias Rajendra
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
writ petition no.16996/2012 19.2.2013 shri d.d.bhargava, advocate, for the petitioner. shri rahul jain, government advocate, for the state. the petitioner is a life convict. he has admittedly been convicted under sections 302 and 449 of the indian penal code and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. as on today, the petitioner has reportedly undergone about 15 years and ten months of the jail sentence. the petitioner, therefore, applied for his pre-mature release from jail on the basis of circular dated 10.1.2012, annexure r1, of the state government. but the state government by the impugned order dated 28.8.2012, annexure p5, has rejected the prayer. it is in this background the petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of order dated 28.8.2012. the circular dated 10.1.2012, annexure r1, deals with pre- mature release of prisoners on the eve of republic and independence days. its relevant clause 1(v)(3) reads as under: ¼3½ vkthou dkjkokl ls n.mkfn"v ,sls cafn;ksa dks].tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjdr 10 o"kz rd dh ltk ls nf.mr gksa rfkk ftugksaus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfeefyr djrs gq, 16 o"kz dk n.mkns”.k hkqxr fy;k gks rfkk ifjgkj dks lfeefyr djrs gq, n.mkns”.k ds 22 o’kz iw.kz dj ysus ij eqdr fd;k tk,xka from the reading of the above quoted clause it is clear that if the prisoner, apart from the sentence of life imprisonment, is also sentenced to additional ten years imprisonment then he shall be released from jail only after completion of 16 years of imprisonment on 26th january or 15th august, as the case may be. on 26th january 2013 the petitioner had not completed 16 years of imprisonment. i, therefore, find no illegality in the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the state government rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for his pre-mature release. the petitioner shall, however, be completing 16 years of imprisonment in jail before 15th august, 2013. needless to mention that the state government will grant benefit to the petitioner on his completing 16 years of imprisonment as per circular dated 10.1.2012, if he is otherwise not disentitled. with the above observation, the petition is finally disposed of. certified copy as per rules. judge ps
Judgment:

Writ Petition No.16996/2012 19.2.2013 Shri D.D.Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State.

The petitioner is a life convict.

He has admittedly been convicted under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

As on today, the petitioner has reportedly undergone about 15 years and ten months of the jail sentence.

The petitioner, therefore, applied for his pre-mature release from jail on the basis of circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, of the State Government.

But the State Government by the impugned order dated 28.8.2012, Annexure P5, has rejected the prayer.

It is in this background the petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of order dated 28.8.2012.

The circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, deals with pre- mature release of prisoners on the eve of Republic and Independence Days.

Its relevant Clause 1(v)(3) reads as under: ¼3½ vkthou dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V ,sls cafn;ksa dks].tks vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 10 o"kZ rd dh ltk ls nf.Mr gksa rFkk ftUgksaus fopkj.kk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, 16 o"kZ dk n.Mkns”.k Hkqxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefyr djrs gq, n.Mkns”.k ds 22 o’kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk,xkA From the reading of the above quoted clause it is clear that if the prisoner, apart from the sentence of life imprisonment, is also sentenced to additional ten years imprisonment then he shall be released from jail only after completion of 16 years of imprisonment on 26th January or 15th August, as the case may be.

On 26th January 2013 the petitioner had not completed 16 years of imprisonment.

I, therefore, find no illegality in the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for his pre-mature release.

The petitioner shall, however, be completing 16 years of imprisonment in jail before 15th August, 2013.

Needless to mention that the State Government will grant benefit to the petitioner on his completing 16 years of imprisonment as per circular dated 10.1.2012, if he is otherwise not disentitled.

With the above observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

JUDGE ps