AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for premature release of the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 10/01/2012.
The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine and default imprisonment as also for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to 5 years RI with fine and default imprisonment in Session Trial No.458/1998 by the judgement of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore dated 31/03/2005.
The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the circular dated 10/01/2012, on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment or 20 years including remission, the petitioner is entitled to be released.
The respondents have filed the reply taking the stand that since the petitioner had committed offence under Section 224 and 225 IPC while he was in custody and was convicted and sentenced, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on completion of 14 years of actual sentence.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 224 IPC was not committed by the petitioner when he was inside the jail but it was committed when he was brought to the Court from the jail, hence, proviso (i) of the circular dated 10/01/2012 will not be attracted in the case of the petitioner.
As against this, the stand of the learned counsel for the State is that the proviso is clearly attracted in the petitioner's case.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner has completed only 15 years, 3 months and 8 days of actual sentence as on 26/03/2019. He had remained in custody from 21/07/1998 to 15/07/1999 and from 12/12/2004 to 31/03/2005 and after conviction, from 31/03/2005 till now. On 15/07/1999 when he was brought to the Court of 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore from CI Jail, Indore, he had escaped from the custody, hence, he was tried and convicted for offence under Section 224 of the IPC and sentenced to 2 years RI, which in appeal was reduced to 1 year and 3 months.
The case of the petitioner is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid facts and in view of the provisions contained in circular dated 10/01/2012. Relevant extract of which reproduced as under:-
"मध्यप्रदेष शासन
जेल विभाग
मंत्रालय
वल्लभ भवन, भोपाल - 462004
ःः आदेष:ः
भोपाल, 10 जनवरी, 2012
क्रमांक एफ-3-50/2011/तीन/जेल राज्य शासन एतद् द्वारा अपर मुख्य
सचिव (गृह) की अध्यक्षता में गठित राज्य स्तरीय समिति से प्राप्त अनुषंसाओं के आधार पर प्रतिवर्ष 26 जनवरी (गणतंत्र दिवस) एवं 15 अगस्त (स्वतंत्रता दिवस) के अवसरों पर ऐसे बंदियों को, जो राज्य के दाण्डिक अधिकारिता वाले न्यायालयों द्वारा सिद्ध-दोष ठहराए गए हैं और जो इस राज्य की या अन्य राज्यों की जेलों में परिरूद्ध हैं, को आगामी आदेष तक उनके अच्छे आचरण की शर्त पर सजा में छूट एवं परिहार प्रदान करने के लिए निम्नानुसार दिषा निर्देष प्रसारित करता हैः-
(अ) आजीवन कारावास की सजा से दण्डित बंदियों की सजा में छूट - (1) आजीवन कारावास से दण्डादिष्ट ऐसे बंदियों को, जो आजीवन कारावास की एक सजा के साथ अन्य किसी भी अवधि की सजा से दण्डित नही हो तथा जिन्होने विचारणाधीन कालावधि को सम्मिलित करते हुए 14 वर्ष का दण्डादेष भुगत लिया हो तथा परिहार को सम्मिलित करते हुए दण्डादेष के 20 वर्ष पूर्ण कर लेने पर मुक्त किया जाएगा। (2) आजीवन कारावास से दण्डादिष्ट ऐसे बंदियों को, जो आजीवन कारावास की सजा के अतिरिक्त 05 वर्ष तक की सजा से दण्डित हों तथा जिन्होने विचारणाधीन कालावधि को सम्मिलित करते हुए 15 वर्ष का दण्डादेष भुगत लिया हो तथा परिहार को सम्मिलित करते हुए दण्डादेष के 21 वर्ष पूर्ण कर लेने पर मुक्त किया जाएगा।
(3) .....
(4) .....
(5) .....
परन्तुक:-
(प) ऐसे सभी बंदी जिन्होने जेल के अन्दर रहते हुए एक या एक से अधिक अपराध कारित किया हो, उसमें उन्हे कुल योग 05 वर्ष तक की सजा से दण्डित किया गया है, ऐसे बंदी 17 वर्ष का दण्डादेष विचारणाधीन कालावधि को सम्मिलित करते हुए भुगत लिया हो तथा परिहार को सम्मिलित करते हुए दण्डादेष के 23 वर्ष पूर्ण कर लेने पर मुक्त किया जाएगा।
(पप) ....
(पपप) ...."
The proviso ¼i½ to the aforesaid circular makes it clear that those convicts who during the custody in jail had committed the offence and sentenced up to 5 years, can be released on completion of 17 years of actual sentence and 23 years including the remission period.
Since the petitioner had escaped from the custody when he was brought to the Court from jail, therefore, his case squarely falls under proviso (i) to the circular dated 10/01/2012 and since the petitioner has not completed 17 years of actual imprisonment, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on the basis of the circular dated 10/01/2012.
The Division Bench in the matter of State of M.P. and others Vs. Sobran Singh @ Siromani Singh vide order dated 03/06/2019 in W.A. No.694/2019 has held that :-
"(8) In view of the principle of law laid down in V. Sriharan (supra), it is manifestly clear that there exists no vested right in the convict to be released premature. The only right is to claim such remission which when claimed would attract the applicability of the provisions in vogue on the date when such claim is made and not which expressly or by implication are superseded. The provisions, in vogue at the time of conviction, in our considered opinion, will definitely be not applicable."
Thus, the petitioner has no vested right for premature release.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated 09/08/2017 passed in WP No.7283/2016 but in that case, the main accused were already released and the coaccused who had lessor role in the alleged offence and was standing on better footing was not released, therefore the appropriate relief was granted. Similarly, the order dated 05/03/2019 passed in WP No.5038/2018 stands on a different fact of footing.
In view of the above, no merit is found in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.