Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a confusing matter wherein, the petitioner claimed of having been in custody for more than the reduced sentence of 2 years imprisonment for offences under Sections 148, 332, 353, 333, 452 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), while the police authorities took a stand that he had never been in custody in the first place, Suvir Sehgal, J. directed the Director General of Police to look into the matter regarding custody of the petitioner.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner to imprisonment for 2 years in Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2016 judgment dated 6-09-2016. However, the petitioner had already undergone imprisonment beyond that quantum of sentence during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1902-SB of 2002 before the High Court.
The Court perused the document on record, the affidavit submitted by the Superintendent of Prison, according to which, the petitioner had already undergone custody of more than 2 years and 5 months. However, the reply filed on behalf of the Additional Superintendent of Police reflected that the petitioner had never been in custody.
Hence, the Court directed the Director General of Police of Haryana to look into the matter regarding custody of the petitioner and accordingly file an affidavit.
The Court listed the next hearing in the instant matter on 18-10-2023 and also, ordered that the interim order staying any coercive processes against the petitioner arising out of conviction in the said matter shall continue.
[Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 898, Interim Order dated 7-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Nikhil Ghai, Advocate Shubham Mangla;
For State: Assistant Advocate General Ramender Singh Chauhan.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
