UTTAM VISHVAS @ SONU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in the instant case is the accused person for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for life for the said offences vide judgment dated 28.2.2007 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg.

(2.) The Petitioner is serving his sentence at Central Jail, Durg and has remained in jail for a period of about more than 14 years. The Petitioner had moved an application for releasing him temporarily from jail under the provisions of Rule 6 of MP/CG Prisoner Leave Rules, 1989 (for short the 'Rules of 1989'). The Superintendent of Police, Durg, vide his report dated 5.10.2015 had recommended the case of the Petitioner for his release from jail taking into consideration the statement of the husband of the deceased as well as the local counsellors of Ward No.36. However, subsequently, the son-in-law of the deceased namely Barendra Nath Mukherjee had objected that in the event of the release of the Petitioner on temporary leave, he and his family members will be at threat and therefore, the same should not be allowed by the jail authorities. On the basis of the said objection by the son-in-law of Barendra Nath Mukherjee, the Joint Collector, vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2015, had disallowed the grant of temporary leave to the Petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had now preferred an application intimating for an urgent hearing which has been allowed and has brought on record the fact that the said objector Barendra Nath Mukherjee has since expired on 27.5.2016 and as such the alleged threat on the basis of which the application for temporary leave was rejected does not survive any further and therefore, the Petitioner's case can be reconsidered by the authorities concerned for grant of temporary leave particularly, taking note of the fact that he has remained in jail continuously for a period of more than 14 years.