Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.954 of 2013 ====================================================== Dhananjay Mishra, Son of Late Lallan Mishra, R/O Village - Tarwa, P.S. Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General (Jail), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj 8. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Motihari .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sharma, A/C to A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) ORAL ORDER 4 11-12-2013 This application has been filed to direct the respondent authorities to immediately release the petitioner from the Central Jail, Motihari where he has been illegally detained by the Jail Superintendent even after completion of the sentences awarded to him and after granting bail by this Court in the case where he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and also directing the respondent authority to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner on account of his illegal detention curtailing his liberty as granted under the Constitution.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.954 of 2013 (4) dt.11-12-2013 2 The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2006 in connection with Sessions Trial No.499 of 2006 in which he was found guilty and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and five years under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V, Gopalganj. He was also held guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default thereof, sentence for six months and further he was held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine six months further imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment dated 22.09.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.453/2006. Thereafter, he filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No.939 of 2006 and he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2012. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, sentence for six months and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 26 of the Arms Act and a fine of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.954 of 2013 (4) dt.11-12-2013 3 Rs.2000/- and in default thereof sentence for six months vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2008 passed in G.R. No.517/2006, Trial No.2588/08 and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Sections 387 and 120B of the I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.2000/- for each section and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment dated 22.07.2010 in Majhagarh P.S. Case No.197/2008. The details of the sentences has been mentioned in the letter dated 16.03.2013 of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Motihari (Annexure-8 of the petition). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for a life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. In this case, the petitioner has been in custody since 14.05.2006 in Sessions Trial No.499/2006 in which he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and five years under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been directed to run Patna High Court CR. WJC No.954 of 2013 (4) dt.11-12-2013 4 concurrently, as such, the petitioner has already completed his sentence for seven years on 14.05.2014. In Sessions Trial No.453/06 the petitioner has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs.3000/- against which the petitioner has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No.939/2006 and he has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2012, as such, there is no justification for keeping the petitioner in custody. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.8 wherein it has been mentioned in Para 10 that the petitioner was remanded in Sessions Trial No.499/2006 on 15.04.2006 and was convicted in other case Sessions Trial No.453/06 on 25.09.2006. So his under trial period in Sessions Trial No.499/2006 is from 15.04.2006 to 24.09.2006 i.e. five months nine days and his probable date of release in Sessions Trial
Legal Reasoning
No.499/06 is on 23.05.2019. But the learned counsel for the State could not substantiate this proposition. It appears that the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.3000/- and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.954 of 2013 (4) dt.11-12-2013 5 in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.453/06. He was subsequently sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 395 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 412 of the I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.499/06. He has been further sentenced vide judgment dated 14.02.2008 for five years and three years vide judgment dated 17.05.2010 and 22.07.2010 three years in both the cases. The petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on 22.09.2006 and thereafter the petitioner has been sentenced to less punishment, as such, the imprisonment shall run concurrently. It is better to quote Section 427 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure : “When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for a life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence” Patna High Court CR. WJC No.954 of 2013 (4) dt.11-12-2013 6 Since the petitioner has been in custody since 14.05.2006 in Sessions Trial No.499/06 and he has been released on bail vide order dated 10.09.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.939 of 2006 by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as the sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.499/06 will run concurrently. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Decision
In the result, this application is allowed. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/-