BACHCHEY LAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Patanjali Misra, learned AGA. This is a matter in which mainly this court is monitoring the cases of convicted prisoners who have actually undergone more than 14 years and are still in jail.

(2.) In pursuance of our last order dated 2.9.2009, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the I.G. (Prisons) dated 22.10.2009 and a compilation dated 5.2.10 has been filed today by the learned AGA. The compilation shows that there are 267 prisoners who have undergone 14-16 years imprisonment,103 prisoners who have undergone 16-18 years imprisonment,93 prisoners who have undergone 18-20 years imprisonment,61 prisoners have undergone 20-22 years imprisonment, 41 prisoners have undergone 22-24 years imprisonment, 10 prisoners have undergone 24-26 years imprisonment prisoners have undergone 26-28 years imprisonment prisoners have undergone 28-30 years imprisonment and 4 prisoners who are in jail for more than 30-32 years, meaning thereby that there is a total of 585 such prisoners. No doubt the supplementary affidavit shows that in the cases of 230 prisoners out of 585, the Forms A have been refused/rejected. The nominal roles of 456 cases were disposed of by rejection or as ineligible and only in three cases were the prisoners released.

(3.) Looking to the chronic over crowding in the prisons, we think that the release of only 5 prisoners amongst these cases, who have undergone more than 14 years appears to be an unduly small number. We also find that the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the IG (Prisons) shows that there is delay in disposal of Forms A and nominal roles especially at the level of District Magistrates and the government level, and so far as consideration of releases on license on Forms A, also at the jail level. These delays are in contravention of the Government Order dated 6.9.2004 issued in pursuance of our earlier order dated 16.8.2004, which provides that as soon as the prisoner became eligible for premature release, within a week of his eligibility for consideration of his Form A or nominal role, the jail authorities were to forward the same after completing necessary formalities to the SP, D.M. and Probation officer along with the copy of the judgment.