Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.984 of 2012 ====================================================== Lalu Singh, son of late Ganga Singh @ Godo Singh, resident of village Bhoraniya, P.S. Bounsi, District Banka .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through I.G. (Prison), Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Banka 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Banka .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) 2 15-10-2012 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “ That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for commanding the respondent no.3 to release the petitioner (Lalu Singh) forthwith in from the jail custody because he already served the sentence imposed by learned court below on 24.12.2010 in G.R.Case No. 1816/2008/Tr/No. 430/2010 passed by Sri D. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka and he also served the sentence imposed by Sri A.L. Srivastava, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Banka on 8.4.2011 in Cr. Appeal No. 138/2008 (arising out of G.R.Case No. 1252/2007/Tr.No. 2604/2008).” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the petitioner had been Patna High Court CR. WJC No.984 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012 2 convicted and sentenced in G.R.Case No. 1252/2007 by a judgment dated 28.8.2008 for a period of three years R.I. as also fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default whereof further R.I. for a period of one year, and he had completed the same in view of his earlier detention, prior to his conviction, with effect from 13.9.2007 which would entitle him to get the benefit of release from the custody even by computing the second judgment of his conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2010 in G.R. Case No. 1816/2008 whereby and whereunder he had been convicted for a period of two years S.I. In other words learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the period of conviction in the judgment dated 28.8.2008 and 24.12.2010 shall run concurrently and consequently the petitioner ought to have been released immediately after 8.4.2011 when the appellate court had reduced the period of sentence in the first case. He has accordingly proceeded to describe his detention in jail after 8.4.2011 to be wholly illegal making him entitled for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for his immediate release. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, having obtained instruction has filed a computation sheet prepared and signed by the Superintendent of Divisional Jail, Banka wherein having given a detailed computation it has been shown Patna High Court CR. WJC No.984 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012 3 that the petitioner will be entitled for release only on 16.4.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has submitted that since the petitioner was in custody, in connection with the first case, G.R. Case No. 1252 of 2007, with effect from 13.9.2007 and was remanded in the second case in G.R. Case No. 1816 of 2008 on 4.12.2008, he would be entitled for the benefit under Section 427 & 428 Cr.P.C. and, as such, when his conviction and sentence in both the cases were also passed by the trial court on 28.8.2008 and 24.12.2010 respectively, the period of sentence had to run concurrently. It has been accordingly also contended that the petitioner ought to have been released from the jail custody on 8.4.2011 because on that day the appellate court in the appeal arising out of conviction and sentence in G.R. Case No. 1252 of 2007 had set-off the sentence for non-payment of fine. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner is of the firm view that detention for even a single day after 8.4.2011 is both unauthorized and illegal and the respondents should be therefore directed to release the petitioner forthwith as also to make payment of exemplary compensation for continuing the petitioner in custody for next one and half years i.e. till today without any authority of law. In this regard, the reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a division Patna High Court CR. WJC No.984 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012 4 bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003(1)PLJR 747. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the provision of Section 427, 428 & 429 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that in absence of any specific order in the second judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner i.e. G.R. Case No. 1816 of 2008 for running of the sentence concurrently with the sentence in the first case, namely, G.R. Case No. 1252 of 2007 it cannot be said that the continuation of the petitioner in custody as on date is unauthorized, inasmuch as, the petitioner is yet to complete the period of sentence in the second case. He has, in this regard, placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Atul Manubhai Parekh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigating reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 2113 which, according to him, has impliedly overruled the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh (supra). 7. In the considered opinion of this Court the facts of the present case would definitely make sections 427 Cr.P.C. applicable. Section 427 Cr.P.C. in this regard reads as follows:- “427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.- (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is Patna High Court CR. WJC No.984 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012 5 s

Applicable IPC Section: 384

Statute Text:
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.