ADAM GEORGE RANGREJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second bail application by the accused. This application, however, is pressed on the sole argument that the applicants have already undergone ten years and two months of actual imprisonment. For that reason, they should be released on bail, as hearing of the Appeal is unlikely in the near future.

(2.) Considering the fact that the applicants have been convicted for offence during trade union activities and as per the guidelines of 1992. they will have to undergo total imprisonment of at least 26 years, relying on these provisions, learned A.P.P. submits that the relief as prayed ought not to be granted in the fact situation of the present case.

(3.) The argument of the learned A.P.P. clearly overlooks the settled legal position that the date on which the convict's proposal for premature release is to be considered, the most beneficial guidelines should be followed. If that principle is kept in mind, as per the guidelines of 2008, for the same offence, the applicants, at best, would suffer total imprisonment of 22 years as it is covered by category 4B in the same guidelines. In this view of the matter, it necessarily follows that the applicants have already undergone almost 50% of the total sentence period provided under the guidelines for premature release. Moreover, the appeal preferred by the applicants pertains to year 2004 and it is unlikely that it will be heard in the immediate near future, as presently appeals of 2002 are notified for hearing. In addition, it is noticed that the applicants were released on furlough and parole in the past and have abided by the conditions specified by the Appropriate Authority in all respects. They have returned back to jail within the specified period. Learned A.P.P. on instructions states that the conduct of the applicants in jail has been satisfactory. Indeed, learned A.P.P. invited our attention to the fact that the applicant No. 1 was placed under preventive detention under the provisions of MPID Act in the year 2001. That, however, cannot be the basis to negate the benefit that would accrue to the applicants on account of having spent more than ten years and two months actual imprisonment and with remission, it would exceed period of twelve years. The apprehension of the learned A.P.P.. however, can be addressed by imposing strict conditions on the applicants.