Partly allowed

Mohd Ashraf Ali v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Dec 2023WP/23782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the premature release of co-accused without similar relief for life convicts' fathers. Directions were issued for the government to consider remission applications on par with released co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' fathers for remission on par with co-accused and issue release orders if entitled, reporting by 26.01.2024.

Mohd Ashraf Ali Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 23675^{AND 23782 OF 2023}

¶7

W. P.NO: 23675 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arif Khan, S/o Akthar Khan^{(Life Convict No 2991), (presentlylodgg!} lrl Central Prison, Chanchalguda)^{Aged about20 years,Occ. Privatejob,Ri/oH} No^'16- 6-31 5/1, Osmanpura, Charminar,^{Hyderabad. Telangana.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. By its^{Principal Secretary(Home Department),} Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director General of Prisons,^{and Correctional Services, Government of} Telangana, Hyderabad. The S-uperintelndent, Central^{prison, Chanchalguda,Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or^{any other appropriateWrit,order or} direction, directing the respondents^{herein to considerthe case of the petitioners} father Akhtar Khan ( Life convict^{No.2991) presentlylodged in central Prison,} Central Prison, Chanchalguda ,on^{par with the case of 1. S.K Zakriah (CT' No-} 3893) 2. Mohd Sarwar( CT.^{No. 4161)3. Mohd Habeeb( CT No. 6484)being co-} accused in the same crime^{No. S.C.No.1120f 1997 0n the file of lV Additional} Metropolitan sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad,)and whohave been prematurely} released by the issuance^{of GolvlS No. 51 Dated1910812023 failing which it will be} in violation of the^{petitionersfathers Fundamental Rights underArticles 14 and21} of the Constitution of lndia.

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF²⁰²³

¶17

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to direct} the 1st Respondent^{herein to consider the representation dated 221O812023oI lhe} petitioner, and release^{the petitioner's fatherprematurely'on par with the other 3} convict^{prisoners' in the same Criminal Case No' 112t1997Dated 2410112003'} pending disposal of^{thiswrit petition'}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:M/s. PUSHPINDERKAUR} Counsel for^{the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME}

¶19

W.P.NO:237^820F2023

¶20

Between:

¶21

Mohd Ashraf^{Ali, s/o [r/lohd. lrfan Ali (Life} ^convict^{No .3266)Aged.about 38} years, occ Private'"5;|.,;;'^{F ; '11-z-+al'Habib Nagar'Nampallv'} Hyderabad. ...'ET'T,ONER

¶22

...'ET'T,ONER

¶23

AND

¶24

State of Telangana,^{Rep By its Principal Secretary(Home Department)'} Telangana Secretariat'^Hyderabad

¶25

Telangana Secretariat'^Hyderabad

¶26

1. The Directo,^e "n"tri.ii^{drit"oiiino co"ectional Services' Governmentof} Telangana, HYderabad.

¶27

Telangana, HYderabad.

¶28

1. The Superintendent^{6i l,itt,Centralprison' Cherlapalli' Medchal District -501} 301

¶29

"'RESP.NDENT.

¶30

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a^{Writ of Mandamus,or any other appropriate Writ' orderor} direction,directingtherespondentshereintoconsiderthecaseofthepetitioners fatherMohd.lrfanAli(LifeConViCtNo.3266)presentlylodgedinCentralPrison, Cherlapalli,tVledchalDistrict-501301,onparwiththecaseof1S'KZakriah(CT' No. 3893) 2.^{Mohd Sarwar(CT. No' 4161)3 Mohd Habeeb( CT No' 6484)being} co-accusedinthesameCrimeNo.S.C.No..l12oflgg7onthefileoflVAdditional lv'letropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad,)and whohave beenprematurely} releasedbytheissuanceofGoMsNo.51Datedlgtosl2o23failingwhichitwillbe inviolationofthepetitionersfathersFundamentalRightsunderArticlesl4and2l of the Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the 1st Respondent herein to consider^{the representation dated2210812023of the} petitioner, and release the petitioner's father^{prematurely, on par with the other3} convict prisoners' in the same criminal^{caseNo. 11211997 Dated2410112003,} pending disposal of this writ petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.^{PUSHPINDERKAUR.} Counsel forthe Respondents:^{AGP FORHOME}

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶36

UrRIT PETITION Nos.23675 an.d23782 OF 2023

¶37

COMMON ORDER:

¶38

W.P.No.23675 of 2023 is filed seeking following relief

¶39

".-....issue a Writ of Mandamus or anA other appropiate^{Witorder or} direction directing the respondents herein to consider the^{caseof the} petitioners father Akhtar Khan (Lifu Conuict No. 2991)^{presentLg lodged} in Central Pisory Chanchalguda on par u-tith the^case of^{1. S.K.Zakiah} (CT No.3893) 2. Mohd. Sarutar (CT No.4161) 3. Mohd. Habeeb^{(CT No.} 6484) being co-accused in th.e same Cime No. S.^C.No.112 of^1997on the file of N Addttional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad and} who haue been premahrelg released bg tlte issuance of^{COMS No.51,} Dated 19/ O8/ 2023 failing ulhich it ttUl be in uiolation of^{thepetitioners} fathers^{Fundomental Rights underArlicles14 and 21 of the Constitution} oJ India.... . ."

¶40

W.P.No.23782 of 2023 is hled seeking following relief

¶41

"......to issue a Wit of MandafiLus or anA other appropiate^{Writ order or} direction directing the respondents herein to consider the^{case of the} petitioners Jatlrcr Mohd. Irfan Ali (I.ife Convict No.3266)^presentlA lodged tn Centrol Pison, Cherlapallt, Medcltal Distict^{5O 1 3O1} ,^{on par} uith^the cqse of 1. S.K.Zqkrtqh (CT No.3893) 2. Mohd. Sorutar^{(CT No.4161) 3.} Mohd. Habeeb (CT No. 6484) being co-accused tn the same Crime^No.S. C.No.112 of 1997 on the file of M Additional Metropolitan^Sessions Judge, Hgderabqd^qnd u.tho haue been^premalurelA released^b!the issuance of GOMS No.51 Dated 19/08/2023 failing uthich it^{tt.titt be in} uiokttion of tle petitioners fathers Fundamental Rights under^ArticLes14 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India . . .. . ."

¶42

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, for the purpose of convenience, they are being heard together and disposed by way of this common order.

¶43

The case of the petitioners is that their fathers i.e., Akthar Khan (Life Convict No.2991) and Mohd. Irfan Ali (Life Convict No.3266) are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 5 in S.C.No.112 of 1997, dated 24.O1.2OO3 on the hle of iV Additional Metropolitan

¶44

¶45

sessions Judge, Hyderabad and they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonmcnt for life and lodged in Central prison, Cherlapally and Chanchalguda. It is the further case of *ie petitioners that questioning the judgment d.ated, 24 .O I .2003 in S.C.No.l12 of 1992, the accused approached this Court by hling Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2003 and the same was dismissed urde judgment, dated I7.1O.2OO3 by this Court confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter, the accused in the said S.C.No. 1 12 of l99Z were lodged in Central prison, Chanchlguda and Charlapally. It is the further case of the petitioners that accused Nos.2, 3 and 6, all being co-accused in the same crime have hled an application/ representation on the hle of respondent No.1 to consider their cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 16, Home (Legal) Depar[ment, dated 17 .O2.2O16 for granting remission. When respondent No. t has not considered their cases, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 have filed W.P.No.21478 of 2O2O and batch on the file of this Court and this Court on 01.06.2021 directed the respondents to extend the benefits to the petitioners therein in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No. 1974 of 2022, dated 17.17.2022 (arising out of SLp (CRL) No.7536 of 2022) and also directed respondent No.l to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners therein in terms of G.o.Ms.No.16,

¶46

Home (Legal) Department, dated 17.02.2016. When the said orders were not implemented by the respondents, accused No.3 (Life Convict No.4161) has filed C.C.No.430 of 2023 on the flle of this Court and this Court on 04.OA.2O23 disposed of the same with the following directions:

¶47

(i) Rejection of request made bg the life-conuict seeking remission by respondent No.1 uide memo dated 29.07.2021 on the uery same ground i.e., the deceased is a 'publtc seruont' is in uioLation of the common order dated 01.06.2021 passed bg thts Court in W.P. No.21478 of 2O2O and batch.

¶48

(ii) Infonnation furnished bg respondent No.1 to the leamed Gouernment Pleader for Home uide letters dated 08.12.2022 and 27.07.2023 stating that there is no enabling prouision in the Rules for pursuing the matters with the Hon'ble Gouernor is absurd. He cannot keep quiet stoting that he sent the file to tLe Hon'ble Gouernor. The said action of respondent .lVo. I is d.eprecated.

¶49

(tti) Respondent iVo. I is wamed not to repeat such acts and the same will be uieu.ted seiouslg.

¶50

(iu) Respondent No.1 shall pursue u.tith the Hon'ble Gouernor bg appraising the time lines ftxed by the Apex Court in disposal of petitions filed by life-conuicts seeking remission under Article - 161 of the Con stitution of India ond get clearance of the file.

¶51

(u) Respondent No.l shatl also consider the pinciple laid d.outn in Raj Kumar @ Bittu 2.

¶52

(vi) Respondent No.l sLrall complete tlrc aforesaid exercise as expeditiouslg as possible and see that life-conuict be released at least on 15th August, 2O23.

¶53

Thereafter, accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 were released on 19.O8.2O23 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.S1, dated 19.O8.2O23. The

¶54

¶55

grievance of the petitioners is that instead of extending the benehts to all the accused in the said crime, respondent No.1 has considered and recommended the cases of accused Nos.2, 3 and 6, who have filed writ petition before this Court.

¶56

The iaw is well settled in, so far as extending the benefits under the policy the respondent No.l cannot restrict to grant remission to the petitioners, fathers in this writ petition, who have not approached this Court by fiting the writ petition. Since the case of the petitioners,fathers rs also similar to the case of the writ petitioners in W.p.No.2147g of 2O2O and batch, respondent No. I could have extended the benefits to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.O9.2023. However, respondent No. I has not even considered the representation s, dated 22.Og.2023 submitted by the petitioners herein to extend the benefits to their fathers on par with the other accused, who were rereased. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶57

7l This Court, on 17 .1O.2O23 directed the respondents to consider the representations, dated 22.Og.2023 submitted by the petitioners for grant of remission to the petitioners on par with co_ accused in S.C.No. I t2 of 7992 i.e,S.K.Zakrian (CT No.3893), Mohd Sarwar (CT No.4161) and Mohd Habeeb (CT No.6484) and pass

¶58

¶59

appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks. But, even after lapse of two (2) months, the respondents have not considered the directions issued by this Court.

¶60

Learned Special Governrnent Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General submits that the cases of the petitioners' will be considered on par with co-accused in S.C.No.172 of 1997, who were released in terms of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 19.08.2023. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that in view of the change in Government, the files relating to grant of remission were not forwarded from lower authorities, so as to grant remission by issuing government orders in favour of the petitioners'. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that if sufficient time is granted to the Government, the authorities would consider the case of the petitioners duly taking note of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No. 1974 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (CRL) No.7536 of 20221 and the orders of rhis Court in W.P.No.21478 of 2O2O and batch and C.C.No.43O ol 2023 for granting remission to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably before 26.O 1.2024.

¶61

In view of the submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions directing respondent No. I to

¶62

¶63

consider the case of the petitioners for granting remission to their fathers i.e., Akthar Khan (Life Convict No.2991) arrd Mohd. Irfan Ali (Life Convict No.3266), on par with co_accused in S.C.No.112 of 7997 , who were released in terms of G.O.Ms.No.S1, dated 19.08.2023, on or before 26.01.2024 and if they are entitled for release, respondent No.1 is directed to issue release order by granting remission and shall file the compliance report before the Registry on or before 26.01.2024 on the decision being taken on the representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶64