Bombay HC orders release of 30-year-old Pune man facing over 83 yrs imprisonment

The bench noted that “if the petitioner is permitted to undergo imprisonment in all the cases, he would be compelled to undergo imprisonment of approximately 83 years 3 months and 5 days, and since he is not in a position to pay the fine, for non-payment of the fine amount, he would require to undergo imprisonment of further 10 years 1 month and 26 days i.e. a total of 93 years 5 months, his entire life, with no hope whatsoever, to even come out of jail”.

The bench quoted Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the USA, “It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.” It also quoted author William Scott Downey, “Law without justice is a wound without a cure.”

The HC added, “Hence, we deem it appropriate to put right the clock, to prevent miscarriage of justice, failing which the petitioner would remain incarcerated for more than 90 years, in 41 cases (total), for committing ‘theft’, with no prospect of coming out of jail anytime in the future.”

“A sentence, more than what a life convict would have to undergo for murder. If permitted, this would certainly lead to travesty of justice. Being alive to this reality, we cannot permit this miscarriage of justice,” the bench said.

Petitioner Aslam Salim Shaikh, lodged in Yerawada prison in Pune had claimed that he was falsely implicated in said cases and the trial courts had not specified if the sentences imposed by them would run concurrently, which was noted by the bench as well.

“Any sentence imposed by any courts must maintain a proper balance between the deterrent and reformative objects of a sentencing policy and must ensure that the said object is sufficiently met,” a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse observed.

The HC found it to be “glaring case warranting its interference as protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, lest there would have been serious miscarriage of justice”.

It said that the “deterrent effect of a sentence is to prevent the commission of a similar offence by the convict…” However, it added, “The sentence of imprisonment should also have a reformative aim… and in fact, the offender should be given an opportunity depending on the nature of offence to improve himself.”

Shaikh had filed a criminal writ petition through jail seeking that the imprisonment sentences (ranging from six months to three years) imposed on him by different trial courts shall run concurrently. Shaikh could not afford to engage a lawyer due to his poor financial condition and had pleaded guilty in all the 41 cases.

The HC also observed that none of the trial courts while imposing sentences and fine considered that the petitioner belonged to a poor family, which was dependent on him. Advocate Gazala R Shaikh represented the petitioner who moved the HC through Legal Services Authority.

The court noted that the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner is more than nine years and ordered for Shaikh to be released in all the 41 cases.