Remanded

Binod Mahli v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Nov 2023W.P.(Cr.)/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the State Sentence Review Board to reconsider the petitioner's remission application under the policy applicable at the time of the crime, ensuring compliance with Supreme Court guidelines and precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned decision is remitted back to the respondent authority to take a fresh decision within twelve weeks in light of the Supreme Court guidelines.

Binod Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(Cr.) No. 27 of 2023

¶5

----

¶6

Binod Mahli .... Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Rinku Bhakat, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate ----

¶11

5 /08.11.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the part of decision of the State Sentence Review Board dated 20.10.2022 by Memo No.11/Prison/2021/4265 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Home and Prison, Government of Jharkhand whereby the claim of the petitioner for premature release was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime.

¶12

Mrs. Rinku Bhakat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No.470 of 2003 by judgment dated 21.06.2004. The petitioner has moved in Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No.1353 of 2004 and by the judgment dated 21.07.2015 the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed. She submits that the petitioner is in custody for 19 years 9 months and 15 days and 28 years 5 months at the time of filing of the present petition. She submits that the said occurrence took place on 13.06.2005 and at that time, the 1984 policy of remission of the Government was there. She submits that now Government of Jharkhand has come forward with a separate policy in the year 2007. She submits that in the impugned decision it is not disclosed

¶13

¶14

on the basis of which policy the case of the petitioner has been considered. She submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 decided by judgment dated 19.10.2022 and further in the case of Umesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(Cr.) No.81 of 2022 dated 10.10.2023] . The decision is not taken in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 7 SCC 626 .

¶15

Mr. P.C. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the case of the petitioner is rightly considered by the Sentence Review Board and was rejected and the petitioner has committed a grave offence and as such, the remission order may not be quashed by this Court.

¶16

In W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 it has already been decided that at the time of crime the policy which was in operation that will prevail and on the basis of that policy, the remission is required to be considered by the Government and in the case in hand, it is not disclosed as to under what policy the case of the petitioner has been considered. Further

¶17

in the case of Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra) , the guidelines were as under:

¶18

(i) Whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) The probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) The potential of the convict to commit crime in future;

¶19

(iv) If any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and

¶20

(v) The socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.

¶21

Any sentence review is required to be considered considering the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶22

It appears that by the impugned order this aspect of the matter has not been taken care of and in view of that, this matter is

¶23

¶24

remitted back to the respondent authority who will take a fresh decision in light of the above discussion and further looking into the judgment of Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (supra) , as well as the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2018 and W.P.(Cr.) No.81 of 2022.

¶25

The said exercise shall be taken place within twelve weeks

¶26

from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶27

W.P.(Cr.) No. 27 of 2023 is disposed of.

¶28

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

SI/,

Binod Mahli v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Mahli v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moin Anwar and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Manoj Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gopal Narayan Das and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baga Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shayla Shakra Alias Tamanna Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Hargouri Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand