Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sonadhar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2022
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 529/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-10-2012
in CRA No. 118/2008 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At
Bilaspur)
SONADHAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION AND I.R AND MR. NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN, SR. ADVOCATE
(A.C.), MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY, MR. DEVANSH A. MOHTA, ADVOCATE (A.C.), MR. ABHIMANYU
TEWARI, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, MR. YOGESH KANNA,
ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF TAMIL NADU, MR. CHANCHAL K. GANGULI, Advocate
for STATE OF WEST BENGAL, MRS. NIRANJANA SINGH Advocate for State
of Bihar, MR. MILIND KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF RAJASTHAN, MR.
NIKHIL GOEL, ADVOCATE FOR HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT, MR. SARVESH SINGH
BAGHEL, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, MAHFOOZ A NAZKI FOR
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MR. SACHIN PATIL FOR STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA,MR. SUBHRANSHU PADHI FOR STATE OF KARNATAKA, MR.
GARVESH KABRA FOR STATE OF UP, MR. G.S MAKKER FOR ANDAMAN AND
NICOBAR ISLANDS, MR. HARSHAD V HAMEED FOR STATE OF KERALA, MR.
SHOVAN MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF ODISHA, DR. MONIKA GUSAIN,
ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF HARYANA AND MR. ABHINAV MUKERJI, ADVOCATE FOR
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, MR. AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE, ADVOCATE
FOR STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, MR. PUKHRAMBAM RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
STATE OF MANIPUR, MS. SWATI GHILDIYAL, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF
GUJARAT, MR. SHUVODEEP ROY, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF ASSAM, MR.
PASHUPATINATH RAZDAN, ADVOCATE FOR STATE OF MP. [FOR FURTHER
DIRECTIONS] )
SMWP(Crl.) No. 4/2021
Date : 29-11-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet Kaur
Date: 2022.12.01
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
16:45:19 IST
Reason: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. (AC)
Mr.Aniket Jain, Adv.
2
Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, Adv. (AC)
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR (AC)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR (AC)
Ms. Vasudha Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Prachi Mishra, AAG
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv.
Mr. Dipesh Singhal, Adv.
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR
Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Tamil Nadu Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG
Dr. Joseph Aristotle, AOR
Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv.
Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Assam Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Arnav Singhdeo, Adv.
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Niroop Sukrithy, Adv.
Mohd. Ovais, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Khanna, Sr. adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Nihar Dwevedi, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Adv.
West Bengal Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat panda, adv.
Ms. Vandana Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Simran Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal K. Ganguli, AOR
3
Bihar Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR
Punjab Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.
Rajasthan Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.
HC of Gujarat Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv.
Andhra Pradesh Mr. Mahfooz A Nazki, AoR
Karnataka Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, AOR
UP Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. Adv./AAG
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Mr. Vikarmajit Banerjee, Ld. ASG
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv.
Mr. G.S Makker, AOR
Kerala Mr. Harshad V Hameed, AOR
Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.
Odisha Mr. Shovan Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.
Haryana Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Dy.AG
Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Himachal Pradesh Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,AOR
Mr. Akshay Srivastav, Adv.
Ms. Pratishitha Vij, Adv.
Maharashtra Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Manipur Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
4
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anupam Ngangom, Adv.
Mr. Wahengbam Immanuel Meitei, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Shravya Pathak, Adv.
Nagaland Ms. K Enatoli Sema, AOR
Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
MP Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv.
Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, AOR
Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Adv,
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vipul Abhishek, Adv.
Meghalaya Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SMWP(Crl.) No. 4/2021
Taken on Board.
EXECUTION OF BAIL ORDERS At the inception, we flag the issue of under trial prisoners who continue to be in custody despite having been granted benefit of bail on account of their inability to fulfill the conditions of bail. In order to have a realistic estimate of it, each jail authority would be required to convey to the State Government the data in this behalf and the State Government would then have to send it to NALSA so that a scheme can be worked out in this behalf. Assistance would have to be provided seeking 5 variation of the terms of the bail in such cases.
We thus call upon all the State Governments to issue directions to the jail authorities to submit the details of such cases in a chart form indicating
(a) the name of the under trial, (b) the offence charged, (c) the date when the bail was granted and
(d) the conditions of bail which have not been met and how long that period from the date of the bail order till now. The State will ensure that these details are made available by the jail authorities to them within a period of 15 days from today and forward the data to NALSA within one week thereafter, whereafter the NALSA will process for making necessary suggestions how to deal with this issue and of course provide legal assistance whereever necessary. The assistance may be obtained from Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) by NALSA in this behalf as it is stated that such an endeavour has been made by them already in Maharastra. SLP(Crl.) No. 529/2021 E-PRISON MODULE Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the developments in Karnataka where the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority informed that e-prison Module has been implemented in 6 all 52 prisons in Karnataka but ”legal aid information module” was not enabled in Karnataka prisons. The suggestion was that the said legal module be enabled to facilitate the categorizing of prisoners receiving legal aid.
The steps taken in pursuance thereto with the meeting held with NALSA along with three Amici assisting us here, has produced a result that e- prison module, having important features, which enable effective monitoring, the e-prison portal is ready to be uploaded accordingly. The suggestion from the learned Amicus is that this should be implemented across the country with coordination between State Legal Services Authorities and the prison authorities. The needful be completed within a period of two months and the compliance be informed to NALSA so that it can be placed before this Court.
One of the suggestions made is e-prison module can be modified for uploading data regarding orders granting bail, status of implementation of the orders granting bail and orders of acquittal.
The needful be implemented within the aforesaid period of time.
It is suggested by learned Amicus that if the aforesaid experimentation proves to be fruitful, the same should be extended across the country in all the States and the NALSA will specifically inform the 7 State Legal Services Authorities though they are already represented before us and should start operation forthwith.
COMPLIANCE OF PRE-MATURE DIRECTIONS BY THE STATES Ms. Liz Mathew, learned Amicus Curiae points out that in e-Prisons application suite is developed by NIC which computerizes and integrates all activities relating to prison management. It is suggested that in respect of life convicts a field for eligibility of filing premature application may be incorporated along with another one for status of premature release application as it would facilitate easy compliance of the timeline directed by this Court in order dated 07.07.2021.
We are of the view that this is a desirable process and should be forthwith explored by NALSA in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs and it will be coordinated by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG who is appearing in this matter. It has also been mentioned that for the special remission in connection with Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, a special module was developed by NIC and Ministry of Home Affairs and it has been given to understand with discussion with the authorities that this has not been incorporated with respect to premature release in normal course.
8
Thus we consider proper to direct that NALSA and Ministry of Home Affairs may explore how premature release for life sentences cases can be included in the system for periodic review so that the matter is not delayed.
List with Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4/2021 on 31.01.2023.
We may once again like to re-emphasize the commendable task being done by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr. Devansh A Mohta and Ms. Liz Mathew, learned Amici Curiae.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)