Case: Niwas Vs. Delhi Administration

is hardly 8 months and 14 days. The only ground on which his case for premature release has been deferred by the Sentence Revising Board as stated in the counter-affidavit is that the report of the Probation Officer is awaited and had not been received by the Board till its meeting held on March 25, 1982. We find from the affidavit in rejoinder an averment made to the effect that the Probation Officers report was forwarded to the Superintendent of Jail for being kept before the Board meeting that was to be held on September 21, 1981. However, there is no clinching material before us to show that the report was actually received by the Sentence Revising Board. Since, however, this petitioner has undergone a total imprisonment of 19 years 3 months and 16 days inclusive of remissions, we feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail forthwith. It is accordingly directed that this petitioner be released forthwith on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In case there is real hardship in furnishing sureties the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may release him on execution of personal bond. In case any adverse order is ultimately passed by the Sentence Revising Board, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings and it will be open to the authorities concerned to apply for cancellation of bail.3. In Writ Petitions Nos. 930 of 1982 (Jaswant Singh) and 919 of 1982 (Raghu Nath) consideration of their cases for premature release has been deferred by the Sentence Revising Board as certain reports from the Police Department as well as from the Probation Officer had not been received by the Board. Since both these petitioners have undergone total imprisonment of over 17 years and 16 years inclusive of remissions respectively, it is high time that their release should have been considered by the Board without any delay. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider and dispose of their cases for premature release within a period of one month from today. If, for some reason, they are not disposed of at the expiry of one month from today, both these petitioners shall then stand released on bail on the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In case, ultimately, the Sentence Revising Board takes a decision adverse to these two petitioners, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge that decision in appropriate proceedings and it will also be open to the authorities concerned, if they are so advised, to apply for cancellation of bail.4. In Writ Petition No. 914 of 1982 (Shri Niwas) the petitioner has undergone a total imprisonment of 14 years 3 months and 28 days inclusive of remissions and as such his case for premature release has become ripe for consideration. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Delhi Administration the only thing that has been stated is that his case for premature release was deferred for being considered to the next meeting of the Board for want of requisite information without indicating what information was required by the Board. It is not disputed that the police report, Probation Officers report as well as the jail Superintendents report are favourable to the petitioner and that all these authorities have recommended his premature release and his conduct in jail has also been certified to be good. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason why consideration of his case for premature release should be deferred any longer. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be released forthwith from the prison. If, at a subsequent stage, the Sentence Revising Board comes to a contrary conclusion, it may be open to the authorities concerned to move this Court for appropriate orders.5. In Writ Petition No. 920 of 1982 (Irshad Ali) the petitioner has undergone a total imprisonment of 14 years 4 months and 14 days inclusive of remissions and his case for premature release has become ripe for consideration. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Delhi Administration what has been stated is that his case for premature release was referred for consideration to the next meeting of the Board as judgment in his case was not made available so as to ascertain the circumstances and the background of the offence committed by him. This would show that the Board has to ascertain and consider certain facts bearing on the question of his premature release. It is, therefore, necessary that some reasonable time will have to be given to the Sentence Revising Board to consider his case. However, we find that his case for premature release has been recommended by the Probation Officer as well as by the Jail Superintendent and his conduct in jail has also been certified to be good and the police report is non-committal in the sense that the police have no comments to make. We, therefore, issue a mandamus directing the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of his case within three months from today. To enable the Sentence Revising Board to expedite the consideration of his case within three months we place on record that fact that the counsel for the petitioner has handed over to the counsel for the respondent true copies of the judgments of the trial court as well as the High Court which the counsel for the respondent states will be forwarded to the authorities concerned forthwith. If, for any reason, his case is not disposed of at the expiry of three months, then the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In case of real hardship in furnishing sureties the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may release him on execution of personal bond. If, however, ultimately the decision of the authorities is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings and it will also be open to the authorities concerned to apply for cancellation of bail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We find from the affidavit in rejoinder an averment made to the effect that the Probation Officers report was forwarded to the Superintendent of Jail for being kept before the Board meeting that was to be held on September 21, 1981. However, there is no clinching material before us to show that the report was actually received by the Sentence Revising Board. Since, however, this petitioner has undergone a total imprisonment of 19 years 3 months and 16 days inclusive of remissions, we feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail forthwith. It is accordingly directed that this petitioner be released forthwith on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In case there is real hardship in furnishing sureties the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may release him on execution of personal bond. In case any adverse order is ultimately passed by the Sentence Revising Board, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings and it will be open to the authorities concerned to apply for cancellation ofthese circumstances, we do not see any reason why consideration of his case for premature release should be deferred any longer. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be released forthwith from the prison. If, at a subsequent stage, the Sentence Revising Board comes to a contrary conclusion, it may be open to the authorities concerned to move this Court for appropriatewe find that his case for premature release has been recommended by the Probation Officer as well as by the Jail Superintendent and his conduct in jail has also been certified to be good and the police report isin the sense that the police have no comments to make. We, therefore, issue a mandamus directing the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of his case within three months from today. To enable the Sentence Revising Board to expedite the consideration of his case within three months we place on record that fact that the counsel for the petitioner has handed over to the counsel for the respondent true copies of the judgments of the trial court as well as the High Court which the counsel for the respondent states will be forwarded to the authorities concerned forthwith. If, for any reason, his case is not disposed of at the expiry of three months, then the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In case of real hardship in furnishing sureties the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may release him on execution of personal bond. If, however, ultimately the decision of the authorities is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings and it will also be open to the authorities concerned to apply for cancellation of bail.