On 11th July 2023, the Punjab & Haryana High Court instructed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Haryana to investigate a compelling case where a convict claims to have served over two years in jail, while the police assert that he was never incarcerated.
The court issued the directive during a hearing on a revision plea challenging the re-arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, Sunil, by a Rohtak court in 2020. Sunil was accused in a 1999 case under Sections 148, 332, 353, 333, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Suvir Sehgal presiding over the case acknowledged the circumstances and stated, “Let the Director General of Police, Haryana, look into the matter and file an affidavit.”
The petitioner, represented by advocate Nikhil Ghai and advocate Shubham Mangla, argued that he had already served a custodial sentence exceeding the two-year punishment imposed on him by the Supreme Court, during the pendency of his appeal, totaling two years and five months.
In response, the police presented evidence stating that Sunil had never been in custody between 17th November 1999, and 30th July 2001, as revealed by a letter from the Deputy Superintendent in 2020 from Narnaul prison. They claimed that the petitioner had not been taken into custody when he approached the jail authorities on October 3, 2016.
Sunil was convicted and initially sentenced to eight years in prison by a trial court in 2002. However, following an appeal filed in 2010, the High Court reduced his sentence to four years. In 2016, the Supreme Court further reduced his punishment to two years.
Discrepancies between the petitioner’s claims and the police’s response led to the issuance of a re-arrest warrant in 2019. The petitioner maintains that the warrant was issued by the Rohtak Court upon the request of jail authorities, disregarding the fact that he had already served his sentence. He argues that as a legally released individual, he cannot be subject to an arrest warrant, citing a lack of legal provisions supporting such action. The case is scheduled for further consideration on October 18.