According to the petitioner, he has undergone companyviction in custody of the respondent, which should be companynted towards sentence are as follows After trial, the petitioner was companyvicted u s 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.01.1991 along with another companyaccused Partap Praharaj, who according to the petitioner, fired one gun shot on the abdomen of the deceased and was sentenced to imprisonment for life simplicitor number rigorous imprisonment for life by the Court of IXth Additional Session Judge, Alipore, Calcutta.
Further case of the petitioner is that he became eligible under Rule 591 1 4 of the West Bengal Jail Code for companysidering his case for premature release under 14 years Rule, including remission, which according to the petitioner should be 10 years of actual imprisonment plus 4 years remission.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J The petitioner, who was companyvicted for the offence u s 302/34 IPC, has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the nature of habeas companypus for setting the petitioner at liberty from the illegal custody in the prison companyrectional Home.
By the said order, this Court further directed to release the petitioner on parole on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/ to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore 24 Parganas, District Kolkata 27 pending decision of this case.
In the year 2001, the wife of the petitioner made a mercy petition to the Competent Authority of the State for premature release of the petitioner but the same was rejected by the State Government on 12.4.2002 although the petitioner had a companysistent good record in Jail Correctional Home and his case was recommended by the Prison Authority for his release.
In the meantime, the petitioner has undergone custody for more than 20 years including the period of remission and about 17 years of actual custody and, therefore, it is alleged that his detention has become unlawful and illegal.
Notwithstanding the law laid down in the West Bengal Jail Code and law laid down by this Court, the case of the petitioner was number companysidered and thereby respondents are violating his statutory rights and provisions.
The petitioner who was made an accused in a murder case numberS.T 3 9 for offence u s 302/34 IPC, was arrested on 5.03.1985.
Another mercy petition preferred by petitioners wife was also rejected by the State Government.
The Superintendent, Alipore Central Jail of his own wrote a letter dated 18.9.2003 to the State Government for reconsideration of the case of petitioner and strongly recommended his release.
Against the companyviction, the petitioner and companyaccused filed Criminal Appeal No.56 of 1991 before Calcutta High Court which was dismissed on 9.04.1992.
Thereafter, special leave petition against their companyviction was also number entertained by this Court.
Thereafter numberhing was heard from the State Government.
The petitioner is liable to be released under Rule 751 C of the West Bengal Jail Code.
The aforesaid Writ Petition Crl.
No.45 of 1998 was heard with another Writ Petition Crl.
since learned companynsel for the petitioner informed that the arguments in the said case have already been companycluded and judgment was awaited.
