AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr. No.,Particulars,Period,Year,Month,Days
1,Under trial period,From 10.4.2003 to 16.8.2007,4,4,7
2,Conviction period,From 12.8.2010 to 23.5.2012,1,9,12
3,Actual sentence,,6,1,19
on 23.5.2012 in FIR No. 65 dated 7.4.2003, in compliance of order passed by this Court in Crl.Appeal No. 1993-SB of 2007 and CRA No.",,,,,
1250 SB of 2010 and 10 years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner remained in custody from,,,,,
8.4.2003 to 8.8.2003 vide letter No. 112 dated 7.2.2017 of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The custody period in case FIR No. 65 dated",,,,,
7.4.2003 as on 21.8.2017 is as under:-,,,,,
Under trial period from 8.4.2003 to 8.8.2003 00 04 01,,,,,
Conviction period from 12.8.2010 to 23.5.201201 09 12,,,,,
From 30.11.2015 to 21.8.2017 01 08 21,,,,,
00 05 01,,,,,
Remission,,,,,
____________,,,,,
04 03 05,,,,,
Total,,,,,
____________,,,,,
The petitioner has completed only 4 years, 3 months and 5 days imprisonment, alongwith under trial period and remission in this case till",,,,,
21.8.2017. That the petitioner was admitted in jail on 30.11.2015 to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment in FIR No. 65 dated 7.4.2003 by,,,,,
order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hisar. On dismissal of Crl.Appeal No. 1993-SB of 2007 and CRA No. 1250- SB of 2010. Custody period of,,,,,
this case was analyzed in which there was a confusion found, therefore, correspondence was made to the that successor Court of Mr. Vimal",,,,,
Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. That 4 years, 4 months and 7 days under trial period from 10.4.2003 to 16.8.2007 is not correctly",,,,,
mentioned in column No.1 of custody certificate dated 23.10.2016 submitted by Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, in this Court. That",,,,,
three weeks parole was granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2006 in Crl.M.No. 30605-M of 2006. He was released,,,,,
accordingly on 17.8.2006 on his furnishing requisite sureties bond to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Jhajjar with a direction to surrender at",,,,,
jail gate on 8.9.2006. The petitioner was asked to appear in the trial Court on 6.9.2006 in case FIR No. 65 /2003 and an entry in that regard was,,,,,
made on the warrant by Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Rohtak, obtaining thumb impression of the petitioner thereon. In the end, the respondents",,,,,
pray for dismissal of the petition.,,,,,
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, besides going through the record, I conclude that the explanation",,,,,
rendered by the respondents for not releasing the petitioner from jail for the reason that he has not completed his sentence, is convincing and",,,,,
plausible. The necessary calculations have been furnished in the written reply. The petitioner can certainly not take advantage of any stray entry in,,,,,
the record to come up with the plea that since he has completed the period of custody, as such he is entitled to be released or that his further",,,,,
custody is illegal. The petition is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.,,,,,