NAINARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two lifers, brothers, were released on bail by this Court by an order passed on 8-11-1983 in Misc. Petition No. 426 of 1983 pending consideration of their case for 'premature release' by the State Government. They are suffering incarceration since 19-8-1975 though their conviction took place on 26-2-1976 in Sessions Trial Nos. 161, 162 and 163 of 1975. Bail, because the State Government had failed to render a decision on the question within the period of three months, was allowed for the purpose by the Court. Eventually, on 20-9-1984, by a communication addressed to the Inspector-General of Prisons (Annexure-P/1), the State Government conveyed to him its decision that his "recommendation for premature release of the petitioners under "14 years Rule" was found unacceptable". Thereafter, the petitioners found themselves lodged again in the Gwalior Central Jail, from where they have moved this Court.

(2.) State has filed return to refute, in particular, petitioners' contention that the impugned order (Annexure-O/1) was bereft of reasons and was, therefore, liable to be struck down. What is surprising is that the contents or the correctness of Annexure-P/1 is not denied. Indeed, State has filed Annexure-R/2, which is a verbatim copy of Annexure-P/1. On the other hand, what is contended with the aid of Annexure-R/1 is that the grounds of rejection of petitioners' case for 'premature release' do appear in the "note-sheet paper of the Special Secretary Law and Legislation, Madhya Pradesh Government, Bhopal dt. 21-11-1984". In the return, it is also admitted that the petitioners are in Jail since 19-8-1975 and they have undergone more than 15 years of sentence including remissions. But, it is further contended in the return, refuting petitioners' grievance of discriminatory treatment vis-a-vis one Mansukh Jatav, that the latter was released in virtue of "Central Order" (dt. 14th Aug., 1984), which was given effect from 15th Aug., 1984. Thus, therefore, Mansukh was not treated preferentially though his case for 'premature release' was also similarly rejected. What, however, could not found in the return is the ground for non-consideration of petitioners' case of release under the same General Order.

(3.) We must at once notice the fatal flaw which vitiates beyond redemption the action of the State as the facts are vocal. What value we can be asked to attach to Annexure-R/1, which is of a later date, in the face of Annexure-R/2? If the 'recommendation' was already rejected on 20-9-1984, how could consideration take place subsequently on 20-11-1984. If these facts show anything, they positively indicate one thing very clearly. There was no consideration at all in any manner of the petitioners' case and an arbitrary decision was rendered earlier, as manifested in Annexure-R/2 and the later endeavour, projected in Annexure-R/2, was a desperate bid to holify and legalise an unholy and illegal venture.