AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Chief Justice Prakash Tatia
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These two writ petitioners, Mangal Mahali @ Mangala Mahali and Ravi Mahali, were convicted in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1996 arising out of G.R. No. 488 of 1995 and have been punished for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 379/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur and they have served sentence of 22 years and 06 days and 21 years 8 months and 20 days as on 15th December, 2011 respectively. Their cases were considered for pre-mature release and has been rejected by the competent committee, who convened the meetings on 20th May, 2011, 25th May, 2011 and 27th May, 2011, on the ground that these convicts have committed heinous offence, which was pre-planned and there is possibility of their repeating the offence and committing more offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners remained in custody for such a long period and their conduct was found to be good by the Jail Authorities and there is no report of anybody in support of the observations made by the committee, contrary to it the Probation Officer has given report in favour of these two writ petitioners and furthermore, even the Jail Superintendent also submitted its report, Annexure-1 at page 16 of the writ petition, which clearly indicates that the authority itself has stated that in case these two writ petitioners are released pre-maturely there is less likelihood that they would involve in commission of crime.
I perused the reply filed by the State and in view of the clear submission of Jail Superintendent as well as the finding that no adverse entry has been recorded against these convicts, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of the prayer of these two writ petitioners was absolutely arbitrary. Hence, the decision of the Committee referred above (Annexure-7), so far these two writ petitioners are concerned, are set aside and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order for pre-mature release of these two writ petitioners, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.