LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-4

RAVI PRATAP MISHRA, SON OF LATE ISHWARDHARI MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA

Decided On March 02, 2017
Ravi Pratap Mishra, Son Of Late Ishwardhari Mishra, Resident Of Village Appellant
V/S
The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. There is no need for reply.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was tried in Sessions Trial No 168 of 1999 and, by judgment and order dated 15.02.2001, was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the then Additional Sessions Judge III, West Champaran at Bettiah for an offence under Sections 302, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code for having murdered one Nitya Nand Mishra due to land dispute. He was about 30 years of age at that time. Having served more than 15 years of physical incarceration as on 11.09.2008 and, with remission, over 21 years, he sought premature release in terms of Sec. 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, Cr P C). It is not in dispute that he was entitled to be released subject to favourable reports from the Jail Superintendent, the Superintendent of Police, the Probationary Officer and the views of the trial Court. When the matter was taken up by the State Sentence Remission Board (for brevity, the Board), views and opinions from all the aforesaid authorities were solicited. The Jail Superintendent clearly indicated that there would be no objection to his release. The concerned Superintendent of Police also communicated that there would be no objection to his release. The Probationary Officer also reported that there would be no objection to his release but when it came to the trial Court, several reminders had to be sent to it to respond. Ultimately, after much persuasion by the Board, the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, West Champaran at Bettiah vide his letter No 49 dated 24.01.2017 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the State), sent his opinion as was supposedly required under Sec. 432 (2) of Cr P C. It would be better to quote the comments of the communication as a whole: