LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-437

S. ABUTHAHIR @ ABU Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

Decided On June 05, 2014
S. Abuthahir @ Abu Appellant
V/S
STATE AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed praying to release the petitioner from jail, since the petitioner is eligible for getting benefits granted in G.O. Ms. No. 873 Home (Prison IV) Department dated 14.9.2006, G. O. Ms. No. 1326 Home (Prison IV) Department dated 12.9.2007 and G.O. Ms. No. 1155 Home (Prison IV) Department dated 11.9.2008.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been shown as one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The Trial Court has found all the accused guilty under section 302, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life. Against the conviction and sentence dated 29.12.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1999, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2000, wherein the conviction and sentence passed against him are confirmed. Now the petitioner is in custody for the past 17 years. The petitioner is entitled to get benefits of various Government Orders, Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.

(3.) In the counter Tiled on the side of the respondents it is averred that in pursuance of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1999 dated 29.12.1999. the petitioner is in custody of 17 years, 1 month and 21 days as on 25.3.2014. The petitioner has been incarcerated in several prisons due to some allegations. In fact, the petitioner has committed prison offences on various occasions. Further the petitioner has committed offence on religious prejudices. Since the petitioner has committed offences on religious prejudices and since his general behaviour in prison is not satisfactory, he is not entitled to get premature release as per the benefits granted in various Government Orders and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.