In Ranjit Kumar Jha @ Ranjit Jha vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava passed a 8-page long order dated April 29, 2026 wherein, it concluded:"....we direct suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal on his personal bond forthwith to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Samastipur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 17/2006/143/2006 arising out of Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000. 12. Fine, if any, imposed as part of sentence shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. 13. List this matter for further consideration on 14th May, 2026 at the top of the list." Justice Prasad has authored the order.
The order reads: "8. It is evident on a bare reading of the affidavit of I.G., Prison, Bihar, Patna that the proposal sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur remained pending in the office of the Remission Board for more than 11 months. There is no explanation for this inaction. 9. We would like to know that who is responsible for keeping aside the proposal and not placing the same before the Remission Board for eleven months. How many applications are presently pending with the date of their pendency be placed before this Court.'
Theorder reads: "10. We also call upon the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur as well as the I.G., Prison, Bihar, Patna to file their respective affidavits to show cause as to why this Court should not exercise its suo motu power as a Constitutional Court to award appropriate compensation to the appellant for his sufferings because of non-consideration of his case for grant of remission immediately after he became eligible for the same on completion of 14 years of actual custody and 20 years with remission and, in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that an appropriate amount of compensation is required to be given to the appellant, why such amount be not realised from the erring officials so that the Government Exchequer who is the custodian of the public money be not saddled with the burden of paying cost and compensation as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments."
In the appeal, the court considered the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal. The appellant was convicted vide judgment dated October 29, 2009 and sentenced vide order dated November 6, 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Samastipur in connection with a Sessions Trial of 2006 which arose out of Musarigharari P.S. Case of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a/27 of the Arms Act. He was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The court recollected its previous order dated April 17, 2026. It observed: "we are not required to examine the case of the appellant on merit for purpose of suspension of sentence and his release on bail during pendency of the appeal. It is an appeal in which the appellant being a poor person coming from lower strata of the society could not prefer an appeal for 16 years 2 months. Ultimately, with the legal assistance provided by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, the present appeal has been preferred. The order dated 17.04.2026 would throw some light on the facts and circumstances under which this appeal has been preferred."
On April 29,, the court went through the affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur. In paragraph ‘6’ of his affidavit, it is stated: “6. That after completion of 20 years of life sentence, his proposal for premature release has been sent to Prison Head Quarter for consideration by State Sentence Remission Board vide Letter No-4126, dated-05-05-2025 by the office of S.K.R.B Central Jail Muzaffarpur, which however, is possible to be considered in next meeting by the Remission Board.”
Justice Prasad observed: "6. It is evident from the statement made by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur that he has not clearly stated about the completion of 14 years of actual custody and 20 years with remission which is the condition required to be fulfilled for purpose of sending the case of a convict to the State Sentence Remission Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Remission Board”). We call upon him to make a clear statement as to when did the appellant complete 14 years of actual custody and 20 years with remission. 7. The I.G., Prison, Government of Bihar has filed an affidavit from which it is crystal clear that only after this Court passed its order on 17.04.2026, the Remission Board got awaken from slumber and the file of this appellant was moved in a hurry."
The order reproduced paragraphs ‘10’ and ‘11’ of the affidavit by the I.G. Prison, wherein he stated: “10. That the proposal of the appellant for pre-mature release was put before the remission board in its meeting dated 21.04.2026. 11. That the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board in its meeting dated 21.04.2026 considered the proposal of the appellant and after due consideration sent their remarks to the competent authority for his decision and approval.”
No comments:
Post a Comment