Prabhushankar @ Lara Son Of Dilip Koushik Aged About 19 Years R/o- Patharra, P.S v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
Case Details
2025:CGHC:4206-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 18 of 2024 Prabhushankar @ Lara Son Of Dilip Koushik Aged About 19 Years R/o- Patharra, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Ministry Of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Registrar General, Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, P.S./ P.O. Chakarbhata, Tehsil- Bilha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh 5 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Central Jail Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA For Respondents-3 and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 2 Wpcr 18 of 2024 Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 23.01.2025 Heard Shri Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned GA appearing for respondents/State, and Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondents-3 and 4. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: Reliefs sought: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to call for entire records relating to the Criminal Appeal No.620/2015, along with the records from Central jail Raipur, relating to sentence served by the petitioner and his releasment. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to pass an Order to concerned respondents to pay the sum of Rs.30 lakhs on account of illegal detention of the petitioner from the period dated 04.04.2019 to 24.10.2019. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant compensation relating to total Jail sentence as served by the petitioner and ultimately vide it’s judgment dated 04.04.2019, he has been acquitted from the charges in Criminal Appeal No.620/2015. 3 Wpcr 18 of 2024 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that vide judgment dated 30.04.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, CG in Sessions Trial No.H-09/2014, the petitioner Prabhushankar @ Lara, and co-accused Chitrang @ Karra @ Manish Dhruv were convicted and sentenced as detailed below: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC Under Section 394 of IPC Under Section 397 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which, additional RI for 3 months (for each appellant. RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months (for each appellant) RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, further SI for 3 months(for each appellant) 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, and sentenced dated 30.04.2015, the present petitioner along with other co-accused namely, Chitrang @ Karra @ Manish Dhruv had filed an appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.620 of 2015, and after hearing the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed its judgment 4 Wpcr 18 of 2024 on 04.04.2019, and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the present petitioner as well as the co-accused by allowing their appeal by extending them ‘benefit of doubt’, and ordered that the appellants therein be set free forthwith. 4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner in this petition that even after pronouncement of judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed in CRA-620 of 2015, present petitioner was not released by the respondents from jail, and the petitioner suffered illegal detention for a period of about six month without there being any reason, and his right given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was curtailed, and infringed. On 22.10.2019, the petitioner moved an application through his counsel before the learned trial Court at Bhatapara, and prayed for release of the petitioner, and after moving his application, petitioner was released from the Central Jail, Raipur. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the relief as has been mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor villager, he was acquitted from the alleged offences by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2019. Despite that he was not released till 23.10.2019, and thus, he was illegally detained from 04.04.2019 till 23.10.2019, merely on account of the carelessness of the respondent authorities, which resulted into violation of fundamental rights, and his life and liberty given under Article 21 of the 5 Wpcr 18 of 2024 Constitution of India is infringed. The petitioner illegally detained for about six months, and has not only suffered monetary loss, but also by mental and physical pain and suffering. Hence, petitioner may be granted compensation for the same. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2019, the petitioner was under obligation to communicate the said order to the jail authorities, however, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel had made any communication to the jail authorities regarding his acquittal. As such, the petitioner could not have been released from the jail. The above mentioned order dated 04.04.2019 came into knowledge of jail authorities only on 18.10.2019, when the petitioner produced a copy of judgment dated 04.04.2019 after obtaining it from the copying Section of this Court on 16.10.2019 at the time of entering into the jail after his temporary release/parole. When the jail authorities came into knowledge of the fact, they immediately took action in the matter, and forwarded the same to the learned trial Court, and requested to issue supersession warrant/release order vide communication dated 21.10.2019, and by the release order dated 22.10.2019, petitioner was released from jail on 23.10.2019. It is further submitted that there is no procedural lapse on the part of the answering respondents, and as per the procedure, the prisoner can only be released from jail after passing of release order from the concerned Sessions Court. It is also the submission of the petitioner that he sought for monetary compensation of Rs.30 lakhs but he neither pleaded nor 6 Wpcr 18 of 2024 stated anything about his job, or income to quantify the compensation. The answering respondent acted strictly in accordance with law, which cannot be attributed infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. There is no deliberate procedural lacuna on the part of answering respondents. The petitioner was not illegally detained by the respondent authorities but the same has been caused due to non communication of order dated 04.04.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the petition. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and considered the rival submissions, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. The procedure to be followed when the sentence under which the accused is in confinement is reversed or modified by the High Court, is prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 315 of the Criminal Courts--Rules and Orders which states as under:- "(2) When a sentence is modified or reversed in appeal by the High Court of Judicature, the warrant shall be signed and issued by the Court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 of the Code: Provided that if it is shown that delay in the release of a prisoner would otherwise be caused, the warrant may be issued direct by the High Court of Judicature and the fact intimated to the Lower Court." 7 Wpcr 18 of 2024 9. A careful perusal of the afore-stated rule would show that when a sentence is modified or reversed in appeal by the High Court, the warrant shall be signed and issued by the Court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 of the Cr.P.C. which provides as under:-- "425. Who may issue warrant.--Every warrant for the execution of a sentence may be issued either by the Judge or Magistrate who passed the sentence, or by his successor-in-office." 10. Rule 768 of the Jail Manual also provides the procedure upon modification of the sentence by the appellate Court. Rule 768 of the Jail Manual reads as follows:-- “768. In every case in which a sentence is reversed or modified on appeal the appellate court shall prepare a fresh warrant in accordance with the terms of the order passed and shall send the same to the officer-in-charge of the jail in which the appellant is confined. It shall at the same time recall and cancel the original warrant and shall forward it to the original court to be attached to the record. The fresh warrant when returned with an endorsement or execution will be similarly dealt with. Provided that if an appellant has been released on bail pending the hearing of his appeal the fresh warrant shall 8 Wpcr 18 of 2024 not be sent to the Superintendent of the Jail until the prisoner has surrendered and it shall be the duty of the appellate court either directly or through the court by which the order of release on bail was actually issued, to take measures to secure his surrender. Note.--When a sentence is modified or reversed in appeal by the High Court of Judicature, the warrant shall be signed and issued by the court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under section 425 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Provided that if it is shown that delay in the release of a prisoner would otherwise be caused, the warrant may be issued direct by the High Court of Judicature and the fact intimated to the lower court." 11. Note appended to Rule 768 of the Jail Manual provides that when a sentence is modified or reversed in appeal by the High Court, the warrant shall be signed and issued by the court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Thus, by virtue of Rule 315(2) of the Criminal Courts--Rules and Orders read with Rule 768 of the Jail Manual, issuance of super-session warrant/release warrant upon reversal/modification of sentence in appeal is the responsibility of the Court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 of the Cr.P.C. 9 Wpcr 18 of 2024 13. It is also not in dispute that vide judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRA-620 of 2015, the conviction, and sentence passed against the petitioner as well as the co- accused, were set aside, and they have been acquitted from the alleged offences. In compliance of judgment dated 04.04.2019, the petitioner could be released from the jail pursuant to the release order dated 22.10.2019 issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara. Nothing has been prayed on record to show that between 04.04.2019 till 23.10.2019, the petitioner or his counsel have ever made any communication to the jail authorities, or intimate them about the judgment of acquittal. Although the petitioner was required to be released immediately, after following necessary procedure, but there is no release order passed by the learned trial Court, and no Supersession warrant/release order received by the jail authorities to release the petitioner from jail. It is only when the petitioner surrendered after completion of his temporary leave/parole period, it came into knowledge of the authorities. They immediately obtained certified copy of the judgment dated 04.04.2019, and without any further delay, the Supersession warrant /release order was obtained by the concerned jail authorities, and thereafter, he was released on 23.10.2019. 14. In the present case, the petitioner has not disclosed his job, work, profession, income etc., which is necessary to quantify his loss. Further, in absence of any averment that the petitioner or his counsel has informed the jail authorities, and despite that the petitioner was not 10 Wpcr 18 of 2024 released from jail within the reasonable time, the negligence cannot be attributed on the part of respondent authorities that they deliberately detained the petitioner in jail even after knowing the fact that he has been acquitted by the order dated 04.04.2019. Further, the petitioner was already released on parole/temporary leave in between that period. The petitioner is having Civil remedy also to establish his claim before the appropriate forum. 15. Further in view of the provisions of sub-rule2 of Rule 315 of the Criminal Courts Rules and Orders, Section 425 of the CrPC, and Rule 768 of the Jail Manual, prisoner cannot be released without there being any Supersession Warrant/release order, which the jail authorities could have got only on 23.10.2019, and immediately thereafter, petitioner was released from jail, which cannot be said to be deliberate act on the part of the respondent authorities. 16. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case of the petitioner, we do not find any reason to grant compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice padma