Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 229 of 2004. Case: Arjun Jadav Vs State of West Bengal. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition (Crl.) No. 229 of 2004
JudgesSudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
IssueWest Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992 - Section 61; Prisoners Act, 1900 - Section 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 57, 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 401, 432; West Bengal Jail Code - Rules 751(C), 591(1-4); Constitution of India - Article 32
Judgement DateJuly 02, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

  1. The Petitioner, who was convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, has preferred this writ petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas corpus for setting the Petitioner at liberty from the illegal custody in the prison/correctional Home.

  2. The Petitioner who was made an accused in a murder case No. S.T. 3(9) for offence Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, was arrested on 5.03.1985. According to the Petitioner, he has undergone conviction in custody of the Respondent, which should be counted towards sentence are as follows:

  3. After trial, the Petitioner was convicted Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another co-accused Partap Praharaj, who according to the Petitioner, fired one gun shot on the abdomen of the deceased and was sentenced to "imprisonment for life simpliciter" (not rigorous imprisonment for life) by the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Alipore, Calcutta.

  4. Against the conviction, the Petitioner and co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1991 before Calcutta High Court which was dismissed on 9.04.1992. Thereafter, special leave petition against their conviction was also not entertained by this Court.

  5. Further case of the Petitioner is that he became eligible under Rule 591(1-4) of the West Bengal Jail Code for considering his case for premature release under 14 years Rule, including remission, which according to the Petitioner should be 10 years of actual imprisonment plus 4 years remission. Notwithstanding the law laid down in the West Bengal Jail Code and law laid down by this Court, the case of the Petitioner was not considered and thereby Respondents are violating his statutory rights and provisions.

  6. In the year 2001, the wife of the Petitioner made a mercy petition to the Competent Authority of the State for premature release of the Petitioner but the same was rejected by the State Government on 12.4.2002 although the Petitioner had a consistent good record in Jail/Correctional Home and his case was recommended by the Prison Authority for his release. Another mercy petition preferred by Petitioner's wife was also rejected by the State Government. The Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated 18.9.2003 to the State Government for reconsideration of the case of Petitioner and strongly recommended his release. Thereafter nothing was heard from the State Government.

  7. In the meantime, the Petitioner has undergone custody for more than 20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become unlawful and illegal.

  8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the length of duration of the imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years of imprisonment and that too...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT