STATE OF U P Vs. BADLOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Jain, J. The State has filed this application for cancellation of bail. The brief facts leading to the application are that non-applicant Badloo was convicted under Section 302, IPC on 9-10-1968 in S. T No. 61/68. His appeal was dismissed by this Court on 29th March, 1972. It appears that after serving a major portion of the sentence he applied under Section 2 of U. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 but no order was passed on his application. There fore Badloo along with some other accused persons who were similarly situated filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 12-11-1984 the apex Court passed the following order: "the writ petitions above-mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 12th day of November, 1984 upon perusing the said Writ Petitions, and the accompanying documents and upon hearing counsel for the parties. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER THAT the petitioners namely Badloo Convict No. 24928, s/o Alla Jilaya (In W. P. No. 2457/83), Bakkha Singh Convict No. 30920, s/o Shri Gurdatt Singh (In W. P. No. 2459/83), and Iqbal s/o Faiaza Khan (In WP. No. 2460/83) be released on Bail forthwith on their furnishing Sureties to the satisfaction of the Dis trict Session Judge concerned, and that in case of real hardship, the District and Sessions Judge may release the Petitioners on Personal Bond of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) without sureties. THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that in case the concerned authorities reject the application of the petitioners for prema ture release it shall be open to the authorities to apply for the cancellation of Bail and it shall be open to the Petitioners to challenge the rejection for which proceedings be taken in the High Court by either party. "

(2.) IN pursuance of the above order the Sessions Judge released the accused on bail on 10-2-85. Even after the above order by the apex Court the State did not take imme diate steps and it was on 18-8-1987 that FORM A prescribed under Rules 6 (1) of the Rules framed under U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act of 1938 (Act No. Ill of 1973), was rejected on the ground that the offence committed by the accused was pre-planned, that the accused is a har dened criminal and that the person who has offered himself as guardian is almost of the same age as the accused and is economically weak.

(3.) IT is pointed out on behalf of the accused that he has actually spent 11 years 12 months and two days in prison and has earned remission of 5 years one month 90 days upto 1-3-1984. The total comes to 17 years one month and 21 days. IT is argued that the accused was convicted in 1968 before Section 433-A Cr. P. C. was enacted and therefore, the Section is not applicable to him as held in the case of Mam Ram v. State AIR 1980 SC, 2147.