Convict Says He Spent Over 2 Years In Jail, Police Says He Was Never There: High Court Orders Haryana DGP To Look Into Matter

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana DGP to look into a matter wherein a convict has claimed that he has already undergone a custody of more than 02 years and 05 months in a case dating back to 1999 but as per the police, he is yet to undergo the two years sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court.

While taking note of the situation, the bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal said, “Let the Director General of Police, Haryana, look into the matter and file an affidavit.”

The court was hearing the revision plea challenging the re-arrest warrant issued against the petitioner in 2020 by a Rohtak court. The petitioner Sunil was accused in a case under Sections 148, 332, 353, 333, 452 and 506 of IPC in 1999.

In 2002, Sunil was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment of eight years. Thereafter, in 2010 he filed an appeal before the High Court wherein the punishment was reduced to four years. In 2016, the Supreme Court reduced the punishment to two years.

The Police in response to the petition said that as per letter issued by Deputy Superintendent in 2020, Narnaul prison, Sunil remained as under trial accused for the period from November, 1999 to July, 2001 in District Jail, Rohtak and after conviction from November, 2002 to June, 2003 he remained in District Jail, Rohtak and from June, 2003 to August, 2003 he remained in District Jail, Narnaul.

It further said that he was released in October 2016 from the prison as per the Rohtak Jail Superintendent. However, the police said during a departmental enquiry, “it was found that the petitioner never remained in any Jail during custody period from 17.11.1999 to 30.7.2001.” Therefore, the police said, the re-arrest warrant was issued in 2019. 

"The petitioner has never been detained in custody. He had approached the Jail authorities on 03.10.2016 but they had not taken him into custody," the police said.

However, according to the petitioner, he had already undergone imprisonment exceeding the sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court, during the pendency of the appeal i.e 2 years and 05 months. In the revision plea against the re-arrest warrant, he has argued that the arrest warrant was issued upon request of the Jail authorities by the Rohtak Court disregarding the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment. petitioner has contended that,

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the court below while issuing the warrant has failed to appreciate the fact that applicant is a legally released person and he is not an absconder. “There is no provision in law under which a warrant of arrest can be issued against a legally released person,” the plea contends.

The matter is listed for October 18 for further consideration.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar @ Kallu v. State of Haryana

Appearance: Advocate Nikhil Ghai and Advocate Shubham Mangla for the petitioner.

Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

Click Here To Read/Download Order