Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-16

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
ORDER Chandra Kumar Songara, J. - Instant writ petition under Articles 226, 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and under Section 315 (H) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred on behalf of the convict/ petitioner, namely Vijay Singh praying therein that the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, whereby he has rejected the application for pre-mature release of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 2006), be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to shorten the sentence of the petitioner and release him, as per the Rules of 2006. 2. In the present case, notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer, vide its judgment dated 03.08.2004, in Sessions Case No.104/2003 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and now he is serving his sentence in the Central Jail, Ajmer. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has served more than eight-years including period of remission of his sentence. Thus, he has served more than 2/3rd part of his sentence. Therefore, he is entitled for shortening of his sentence, as per Rules 8 (1) (iv) & 9 of the Rules of 2006. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is eighty-two years old and is suffering from various diseases, therefore, as per Rule 8 (vi) of the Rules of 2006, he is entitled for shortening of his sentence. Counsel contends that vide order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) the respondent No.3/Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer has rejected the application of the petitioner regarding premature release mentioning therein that the eligibility period for premature release is fourteen-years of served original sentence and two years & six months of remission. Lastly, counsel submits that the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2021 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to shorten the sentence of the petitioner and pre-maturely release him. 4. Lastly, counsel submits that the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2021 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to shorten the sentence of the petitioner and pre-maturely release him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has served total period of sentence upto 18.05.2021 i.e. 07 years 09 months and 29 days. Counsel further submits that according to the Rule 8 (1) of the Rules of 2006, the eligibility for release on pre-mature basis is after completion of fourteen-years of sentence and earned remission of 02 years and 06 months but the petitioner has not attained the eligibility, as per Rules of 2006. Hence, his application has rightly been rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material made available on record. 6. The order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent No.3/ Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, reads as under :- Rules 8 (1) (i) (ii) (iv) (vi) & 8 (2) (i) of the Rules of 2006, read as under :- "8. Prisoners eligibility for consideration by the advisory Board.- (l) The Advisor Board may consider the cases of the following type of prisoners only:- (i) a prisoner undergoing a substantive sentence of five years or over, and who has completed two thirds of imprisonment, including remission; (ii) a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or for more than 14 years, and who has served 2/3rd of his sentence excluding remission or 13 years 4 months of imprisonment including remission) whichever is less. The period of imprisonment shall include sentence in default of payment of fine, if the same has not been paid; iii)........................ (iv) Prisoners suffering from fatal diseases like cancer, AIDS, or infectious diseases, such as leprosy; provided their disease is likely to be dangerous to other prisoners and conditions prescribed in rule 7 are fulfilled; (v)....................... (vi) Prisoners who have attained the age of 70 years in case of male prisoners and 65 years in case of women prisoners and who have completed at least one third of their sentence, and in whose case no public interest is likely to be served by keeping them in prison, provided they are serving sentences for their first and only conviction. 8. 8. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1) (i) a prisoner who has been sentenced-to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishment provided by law or who has been sentenced, to death but his sentence has been commuted under Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into one of imprisonment for life, shall be considered only after he has served 14 years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial, on the condition that such a prisoner shall also have to earn ["a minimum of 2 years and 6 months of remission in order to be eligible for consideration." shall be substituted. ii)......................................." 7. In the present case, the petitioner is undergoing sentence in Sessions Case No.104/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 148, 429/149 & 307/149 of I.P.C. and 3/25 of Arms Act for life imprisonment with a fine vide judgment dated 28.05.2005 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer. He has served total period of sentence of 07 years 09 months and 29 days up till 18.05.2021 (Annexure-R/1). 8. It is worthwhile to mention here that for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of I.P.C., penalty of death is one of the punishments provided under the law. 9. Submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case of the present petitioner falls under the provisions of Rules 8 (1) (iv) (vi) & 9 of the Rules of 2006, whereas Rule 8 (2) (i) of the Rules of 2006 provides that a prisoner, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by law, shall be considered only after he has served fourteen-years of actual imprisonment excluding remission but including the period of detention spent during enquiry, investigation or trial. Hence, we do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for pre-mature release of the petitioner under the said Rules. 10. In view of aforesaid provisions of the Rules 8 (1) & 8 (2) of the Rules of 2006 and above discussions, no case is made out to set aside the order dt. 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer. 11. 10. In view of aforesaid provisions of the Rules 8 (1) & 8 (2) of the Rules of 2006 and above discussions, no case is made out to set aside the order dt. 26.02.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer. 11. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed.