AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and hands up his instruction dated 1st April, 2024. The instruction says petitioner was granted premature release on 12th April, 2017 as per order of the Government vide memo no.3295 dated 30th March, 2017. Since then he has been residing near Golanthara Police Station with his family, maintaining his livelihood by running a tea stall. Relevant documents are annexed to the instruction.
We by our order dated 18th March, 2024 had required the information. We reproduce below paragraphs 1 to 3 therefrom.
“1. None appears on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.
We reproduce below text of order dated 22nd February, 2024.
“1. The writ petition has been listed at instance of the department. There is indication in note sheet that nomenclature not correctly furnished. Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 23rd September, 2015 had recorded that prayer in the writ petition is for premature release of life convicts and final verdict stood reserved with the Supreme Court
None appears.
Petitioner will take steps for change of nomenclature prior to adjourned date, failing which consequences are likely to follow.
List on 18th March, 2024.”
Prayer in the writ petition is for direction to set petitioner at liberty forthwith. Petitioner has prayed as such because according to him he along with one Pradeep Padhy were accused under sections 302/34 and 307/324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were found guilty by judgment dated 17th January, 1995 of the Second Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no.40 of 2003. Both were convicted for life. They preferred criminal appeal (CRLA no.61 of 1995). It was dismissed by judgment dated 20th July, 2001.
Further allegation is that Pradeep Padhy was released prematurely. Hence, petitioner also prays to set him at liberty. Obviously, he is in custody and, therefore, it is presumed he is unable to take steps for prosecuting the writ petition.”
In view of aforesaid, we excuse omission of petitioner to appear. No further order need be made in the writ petition. The instruction and documents attached be kept in the record.
The writ petition is disposed of.
.……………………………….