2025:HHC:35430 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14707 of 2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 Ram Lal … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : M/s Shikha Rajta and Urvashi Rajta, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Heard. In addition to Ms. Shikha Rajta, Ms. Urvashi Rajta, is also appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to assist the Court. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody forthwith. (b) Declare that the sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in case No.98/2 of 2012 by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, on 23.05.2013 runs concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1999.” 2. In the present case the notice was issued on 16.09.2025 and time was granted to the State to file reply. Thereafter, despite 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35430 two more opportunities granted no reply has been filed by the State. Therefore, right of the State to file reply is hereby closed. 3. The issue involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner herein was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1999, titled State Versus Ram Lal, vide judgment dated 20.04.2000 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-2, dated 17.05.2013, in a complaint filed under Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of non-payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, was released prematurely on 06.01.2025, in Case No.8-R/7 of 1999 and FIR No.29 of 1999, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in compliance to the Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, H.P., letter dated 06.01.2025 upon deposition of the amount of Rs.5,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite this order of premature release the 3 2025:HHC:35430 petitioner still has not been physically released from the Jail on the ground that he has to undergo one year simple imprisonment in another case registered against him under the provisions of Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968. 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel have drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They submitted that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 427, if a person is convicted for the commission of an offence and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, then any subsequent conviction of such a person for the commission of any offence has to go concurrently with the earlier sentence. They submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 20.04.2000 and he was convicted for the commission of an offence under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and the year 2013, the sentence imposed upon him in the year 2013 was to concurrently run with the sentence imposed upon the petitioner in the year 2000 and therefore, because the petitioner has spent more than one year even as from the date of second conviction of the petitioner, now the petitioner can no more be 4 2025:HHC:35430 retained in custody. Accordingly, they prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be ordered to be released. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that herein there are certain peculiar facts and they are that it is not as if the petitioner subsequently was convicted for the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The subsequent conviction was under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, meaning thereby that the Parole which was availed by the petitioner was breached by him, which led to his subsequent conviction and therefore, but natural, this conviction has to be undergone by him independently as compare to his conviction. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. He relied upon to explanation Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 to further his contention. 7. I have heard learned Legal Aid Counsel as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the judgment cited therewith, in terms thereof, the petitioner has been convicted. 8. It is not in dispute that the first conviction of the 5 2025:HHC:35430 petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 20.04.2000, resulted in imposition of sentence of life imprisonment upon him. It is also not in dispute that the subsequent conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 was while he was already undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. 9. Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as under:- “(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence; Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.” 6 2025:HHC:35430 10. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment of life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. 11. The language of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes is evident that the provisions of this sub-section are mandatory in nature. Meaning thereby that when a person who is already undergoing a sentence for imprisonment for life, is subsequently also convicted then the sentence subsequently imposed upon him shall run concurrently with previous sentence. 12. In the present case as the conviction, on account of which the petitioner has not been released after his premature release order was passed, is the subsequent conviction, i.e. a conviction after he already stood convicted to undergo life imprisonment, the sentence subsequently imposed, mandatory had to run concurrently with such previous sentence. As the term of the subsequent sentence was one year only and the petitioner was convicted for the second time in the year 2013, obviously, this 7 2025:HHC:35430 subsequent sentence had come to an end much before the year 2021 when the petitioner was ordered to be released premature. 13. Therefore, in this backdrop, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the non-release of the petitioner physically from the Jail on the ground that he has to undergo one year imprisonment separately in another case is totally illegally and unjustified. Once, the petitioner was ordered to be released prematurely on 06.01.2025, then he should have been released forthwith and his subsequent detention is totally illegal and in fact, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. As far as reference to the explanation to Section 9 of the 1968 Act is concerned, I will deal with the same hereafter. 15. For ready reference, Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. Penalty for failure to surrender.- Any prisoner who is liable to be arrested under sub-section (2) of section 8, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Explanation.- The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment awarded to the prisoner for the offence for which he was convicted.” 8 2025:HHC:35430 16. The explanation to Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 is only is to this effect that the punishment imposed upon a convict under the Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, is in addition to the punishment awarded to him for the offence for which he was earlier convicted. However, the explanation does not says that it overrides the provisions of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Meaning thereby, that if a person is sentenced to undergo imprisonment other than life imprisonment and if the same is covered under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if thereafter, a person is convicted also under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968, then if there is no express order passed that the conviction order under Himachal Pradesh Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 shall not concurrently with the previous conviction, said conviction would have to be undergone by such a convict after the earlier sentence period is over. However, in light of the specific provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because this punishment is subsequent to the earlier punishment of life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner, the same 9 2025:HHC:35430 mandatorily has to run concurrently with the previous sentence and as already observed hereinabove, because the petitioner was subsequently convicted in the year 2013, the period of second conviction is over as of now. 17. As the detention of the petitioner after his order of premature release is per se illegal, the respondent-Department is directed to compensate him by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for said act of its as compensation. 18. The Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Shikha Rajta, learned Legal Aid Counsel and Ms.Urvashi Rajta, learned Counsel, who was also requested by the Court to assist the Court in the matter, by appointing her as a Legal Aid Counsel. Both be paid their respective fee as Legal Aid Counsel. 19. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 15, 2025 (Rishi)