been reduced to the period in custody, the petitioner has already undergone and there is no dispute that the petitioner had been in custody from 31.01.2002 to 02.05.2002 and from 22.02.2019 to till date, which is no doubt, more than two years and six months. So far as the sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 407, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act is concerned, the substantive sentence was two years and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo R.I. for six more months which undisputedly, he has undergone in view of the order that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently, and the period already undergone by the petitioner during trial and investigation be set off. So far as the contention of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 regarding Rule 491 of Bihar Jail Manual is concerned, the said rule is applicable when the court has not passed any order for concurrent running of sentences and that the period undergone by the convict is to be set off and once the order is passed by this court that the period undergone by the convict is to be set off, certainly such order will prevail upon the Room 491 of the Bihar Jail Manual, hence in the present case as already indicated above that specific order has been passed by the court regarding concurrent running of sentences and that the period undergone by the convict is to be set off, the said Rule 491 of Bihar Jail Manual can certainly not be an impediment for release of the petitioner from custody as he has already undergone the sentence of 2 years and the default sentence of 6 months. Thus this court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to keep the petitioner in custody in excess of two years and six months, which the petitioner has already undergone.
