Crl. Misc. No. M-5958 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5958 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Randhir Singh alias Dhira .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner, who is a convict in FIR No. 72 dated 15.6.1989, under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, has approached this Court seeking cancellation of warrants of arrest issued against him by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 8.2.2008. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was convicted in the aforesaid FIR and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide judgment dated 13.9.2000. Against the said judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 1062-SB of 2000 was filed before this Court. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 198 of 2006, claiming therein that he having undergone requisite imprisonment after including the benefit of remissions granted by the State of Punjab under Article 161 of the Constitution of India was entitled to be released from jail. The writ petition was allowed on 8.11.2006 directing therein that in case it is found that the total undergone period of sentence of the petitioner after adding the period of remissions was more than the period of sentence awarded to him, he be released from jail, during the pendency of Special Leave Petition in Ekka Ram v. State of Punjab, [SLP (Criminal) No. 2496 of 2006], against the judgment of this Court, which was relied upon. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from jail. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his conviction was dismissed by this Court on 12.1.2007. Immediately thereafter, arrest warrants against the petitioner were issued on 8.2.2008. It is at this stage that the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No. M-5958 of 2008 [2] approached this Court challenging the warrants of arrest. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded sentence for imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of which further imprisonment of one year was awarded. Up to 28.11.2006, he had undergone actual imprisonment of 8 years and one month and after adding the remissions entitled to the petitioner for a period of 7 years and reducing therefrom the period of parole enjoyed by the petitioner, the total sentence including the remissions comes to 13 years, 8 months and 3 days. As the same was much more than the sentence awarded to the petitioner and in terms of the judgment of this Court in favour of the petitioner, he being entitled to add the period of remissions, during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner cannot be put behind the bar as it is only after the issue regarding admissibility of the remissions is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner can be put behind the bar in case the judgment of this Court is reversed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the arrest warrants have rightly been issued against the petitioner after the dismissal of his appeal, as he deserves to be put behind the bar to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Issue similar to what is involved in the present petition has already been considered by this Court in Crl. W.P. No. 768 of 2005 –Ajaib Singh son of Jit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 8.11.2006, where a workable solution for the interregnum period has been devised. It was ordered therein that the accused shall be released temporarily subject to fulfilment of the following terms and conditions: “(1) Before releasing the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of Jail will verify the period undergone by the convict and the remissions granted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and that if after subtracting the period on parole, the convict has undergone the sentence awarded by the Court, he shall be released temporarily on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab in the case of Ekka Ram [SLP (Crl.) No. 2496 of 2006] arising from the final judgment and order dated 14.9.2005 passed in Crl. W.P. No. 839 of 2004. The convict concerned will be granted Crl. Misc. No. M-5958 of 2008 [3] the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by the Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction. (2) The petitioner will remain on bail during the pendency of SLP No. 2496 of 2006 in Hon'ble Supreme Court. If as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, benefit of remissions under Article 161 is not granted, the convict will surrender back in jail for undergoing the unexpired period of sentence. (3) At the time of release on bail, the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and will continue informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned his residential address from time to time.” As the petitioner in the present case had already been temporarily released on bail during the pendency of his appeal, he will now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 17.8.2009, who shall get his case examined from the concerned Superintendent of Jail and in case on verification, it is found that the period of remissions granted by the State under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, if added to the actual imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, is more than the sentence awarded by this court, he shall be temporarily released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Sangrur and undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the court and will keep peace and will continue informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate about his residential address from time to time. However, after the decision of SLP No. 2496 of 2006 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is found to be not entitled to the benefit of remissions, he will surrender back in jail to undergo remaining period of sentence. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.7.2009 mk