Jharkhand HC Seeks State Reply on Life Convict Anil Sharma's Plea After 29 Years
Jharkhand HC seeks reply on convict's plea after 29 years

Jharkhand High Court Orders State Response in Convict's Plea

The Jharkhand High Court has taken a significant step in a long-standing legal battle, directing the state government to file its response in a petition filed by Anil Sharma, a convict serving life imprisonment at the Birsa Munda Central Jail, who is seeking his release from prison. The order was passed on Friday by a court presided over by Justice Anil Kumar Chaudhary.

The Grisly 1999 Jail Murder

The case has its roots in a violent incident that occurred within the prison walls. Sharma was already an inmate when, on January 22, 1999, he, along with his accomplices Bablu Srivastava, Niranjan Kumar Singh, Sushil Srivastava, and Madhu Miyan, stabbed Sudhir Kumar Singh alias Bhoma Singh to death. The murder was a direct result of gang rivalry.

Bhoma Singh was a criminal affiliated with Sharma's rival gangster, Surendra Singh Rautela alias Bengali. The motive for the killing emerged after one of Bengali's associates attempted to attack a member of Sharma's gang near the jail gate. In retaliation, Sharma and his men carried out the fatal attack on Bhoma Singh the very next day.

A Long Legal Journey: From Death Sentence to Life Term

The legal proceedings began when Hari Raj Singh, Bhoma Singh's cousin who was also a jail inmate, lodged an FIR against Sharma. This led to a sessions court in Ranchi sentencing Anil Sharma to death on March 22, 2002.

Sharma subsequently challenged this verdict in the high court. In a pivotal turn of events, a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment on November 29, 2002.

In his latest petition, Sharma has pleaded that he has already spent 29 years behind bars. He is seeking release on the grounds that he has completed more than the period typically associated with a life sentence and is therefore entitled to remission of his sentence. The court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter after four weeks.