{"id":3258,"date":"2011-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-20T17:44:58","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T12:14:58","slug":"ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011<\/div>\n
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                              CR. WJC No.1054 of 2010\n           1. RAMASHRAY SHARMA SON OF LATE TRIVENI\n          SINGH\n          2. RAM KISHORE SHARMA SON OF LATE TRIVENI\n          SINGH\n          ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POLICE STATION-\n          MOKAMA (MOLDIAR TOLA),DISTRICT-PATNA-----------\n          - PETITIONERS\n          .\n<\/pre>\n
                                    Versus
\n                    THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .\n<\/p>\n
       For the petitioners:- Mr. Manish Kumar No.2,Advocate
\n       For the State:- Mr. Siddharth Prasad, AC to AAG 9
\n10   25 .01.2011           Two petitioners Ramashray Sharma<\/p>\n
                   and Ram Kishore Sharma have filed this<\/p>\n
                   application     for   directing   the   respondent<\/p>\n
                   authorities to release them from the custody<\/p>\n
                   in the light of notification of the State of<\/p>\n
                   Bihar, Department of Home (Special) dated<\/p>\n
                   10.12.2002 contained in Memo No. 3106,<\/p>\n
                   since they have already remained in custody<\/p>\n
                   for a period, which makes them entitled for<\/p>\n
                   premature release from custody, in terms of<\/p>\n
                   Clause (iii) sub Clause (Gha) and (ch) of the<\/p>\n
                   Notification.\n<\/p>\n
                           Petitioners were named as accused
\n                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
in Mokama P.S. case No. 23 of 1976 and<\/p>\n
faced trial vide Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1983.<\/p>\n
They     were      convicted    by        the   Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge Xth, Patna under Section 302<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and<\/p>\n
order dated 26.3.1987 and sentenced them<\/p>\n
R.I. for life. Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1987<\/p>\n
preferred by them against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction was dismissed by the High Court<\/p>\n
vide judgment dated 12.5.2000 and the Apex<\/p>\n
Court also dismissed SLP No. 2773 of 2000<\/p>\n
preferred by them, against their conviction<\/p>\n
by the Trial Court and the High Court.<\/p>\n
          Petitioners\u201f      case     is    that      a    duly<\/p>\n
constituted Medical Board as per direction of<\/p>\n
the State Government, for assessing the age<\/p>\n
of    prisoners,      with     an    object       of     their<\/p>\n
premature release, had examined these two<\/p>\n
petitioners and as on 23.5.2007 their age<\/p>\n
was     assessed       as    73      and        75       years<\/p>\n
respectively. Now they are more than 78-80
\n                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
years. They have remained in custody with<\/p>\n
remission for thirteen years. Petitioners are<\/p>\n
claiming    their    entitlement    for     premature<\/p>\n
release in the light of notification dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2002 issued under the signature of<\/p>\n
Home Commissioner, State of Bihar, wherein<\/p>\n
a   guideline       has   issued   for      release    of<\/p>\n
prisoners completing the sentence under<\/p>\n
different    heads.       Clause    (iii)     of      this<\/p>\n
notification relates to the entitlement of<\/p>\n
convicts     for      premature      release,          on<\/p>\n
recommendation to the State Government by<\/p>\n
the State remission Board. Clause (iii) (Ka)<\/p>\n
provides that each convict, male or female<\/p>\n
who is undergoing life imprisonment and<\/p>\n
whosoever comes under the provision of<\/p>\n
section 433 (A) Cr.P.C. will be entitled for<\/p>\n
consideration of their premature release,<\/p>\n
after remaining in custody for 14 years,<\/p>\n
without remission. Clause (iii) (gha) provides<\/p>\n
that convict undergoing life imprisonment,
\n                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
who have completed 65 years of age will be<\/p>\n
entitled for premature release if remained in<\/p>\n
custody for seven years with remission.<\/p>\n
Clause   (iii)       (ch)    provides   that    convicts<\/p>\n
undergoing       life       imprisonment,      who    are<\/p>\n
suffering from disease like cancer, aids               or<\/p>\n
incurable   disease          of   Kidney,   Heart     and<\/p>\n
respiratory system or any infectious disease<\/p>\n
for which the Medical Board has certified, will<\/p>\n
be   entitled    for        premature   release      after<\/p>\n
remaining in custody for actual five years or<\/p>\n
with remission 7 years.\n<\/p>\n
         Petitioner no.1 Ramashray              Sharma<\/p>\n
and petitioner No.2 Ram Kishore Sharma<\/p>\n
both are claiming that they are suffering<\/p>\n
from incurable heart disease. In order to<\/p>\n
corroborate      this claim they have annexed<\/p>\n
medical certificates of Indira Gandhi Institute<\/p>\n
of Cardiology. They also have stated that<\/p>\n
they are more than 65 years presently 78<\/p>\n
to 80 years, as such their case comes well
\n                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
within Sub-Clause (Gha) and (ch) of clause<\/p>\n
(iii) of the notification, relating to premature<\/p>\n
release.\n<\/p>\n
           Counsel appearing for the petitioners<\/p>\n
has submitted that in view of the notification<\/p>\n
as well as Full Bench decision of this Court<\/p>\n
in case of Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Bihar reported in 1984 PLJR 724, petitioners<\/p>\n
are entitled for their premature release as<\/p>\n
they have remained in custody for more than<\/p>\n
seven years with remission.\n<\/p>\n
           Counter affidavit has been filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Inspector General (Prison)<\/p>\n
Bihar, Patna.       So far as the factual matrix<\/p>\n
regarding petitioners\u201f conviction and their<\/p>\n
period in custody is concerned, it has not<\/p>\n
been disputed. However, it has been stated<\/p>\n
that the     notification   of the   Government<\/p>\n
relating to remission and premature release<\/p>\n
of convicts remaining in custody for longer<\/p>\n
period on account        of their conviction for
\n               6<\/span><\/p>\n
offences in which the life and death sentence<\/p>\n
are awarded, has been amended by State<\/p>\n
Government        vide     notification       dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2002 contained in Memo no. 3106.<\/p>\n
The State Government in exercise of powers<\/p>\n
conferred under Section 59 of Bihar Jail<\/p>\n
Manual    has brought amendments in Rule<\/p>\n
529 of the Bihar Jail Manual and constituted<\/p>\n
remission Board. The State remission Board<\/p>\n
will be a Board which will consider and will<\/p>\n
make     recommendation        to     the     State<\/p>\n
Government,       in   appropriate    cases      for<\/p>\n
premature release. The Board will comprise<\/p>\n
of Home Secretary, Law Secretary, one<\/p>\n
District and Sessions Judge nominated by the<\/p>\n
High Court, one Inspector General of Police,<\/p>\n
Inspector General ( Prison) as well Director<\/p>\n
(Vigilance)   nominated      by     the     Director<\/p>\n
General of Police, Bihar, Patna. This Board<\/p>\n
will make recommendation for premature<\/p>\n
release of such convicts, who have acquired
\n                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
eligibility   for    premature      release.    So   far<\/p>\n
petitioners are concerned, for premature<\/p>\n
release recommendation in their case had<\/p>\n
earlier       been    made     by    Superintendent,<\/p>\n
Adarsh Jail Beur, Patna vide letter no. 2606<\/p>\n
dated 9.5.2006 and letter no. 1987 dated<\/p>\n
11.4.2006.      Since,    at     that    time    State<\/p>\n
Remission Board was not functional, as such<\/p>\n
their cases for premature release could not<\/p>\n
be considered. On constitution of Remission<\/p>\n
Board,        recommendation            made         by<\/p>\n
Superintendent of concerned Jail, in favour of<\/p>\n
the petitioners was considered and rejected<\/p>\n
by the \u201eBoard\u201f, considering that they have<\/p>\n
been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and<\/p>\n
unless they will complete 14 years in actual<\/p>\n
confinement, they will not be entitled for<\/p>\n
premature release.           Both the petitioners<\/p>\n
have been convicted under Section 302 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code and thus come under<\/p>\n
coverage of provisions contained in Section
\n                8<\/span><\/p>\n
433 (A) of Cr.P.C.. Any convict whose case<\/p>\n
comes under the provisions of section 433(A)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C cannot be considered for premature<\/p>\n
release, unless completes 14 years of actual<\/p>\n
confinement.       In this view the case of the<\/p>\n
petitioners come under Clause (iii) Sub-<\/p>\n
Clause (ka) of the notification and not within<\/p>\n
the purview of Clause (iii) (Gha) and (Ch) of<\/p>\n
the Notification.\n<\/p>\n
        Section 433 (A) Cr. P.c. was inserted<\/p>\n
by amendment Act of 1978. Section 433 (A)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Notwithstanding anything contained<\/p>\n
in   section   432,       where     a   sentence    of<\/p>\n
imprisonment        for    life    is   imposed    on<\/p>\n
conviction of a person for an offence for<\/p>\n
which death is one of the punishment,<\/p>\n
provided by law or where a sentence of<\/p>\n
death   imposed       on    a     person   has    been<\/p>\n
commuted under section 433 into one of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life, such person shall not
\n                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
be released          from prison unless he had<\/p>\n
served     at        least    fourteen      years    of<\/p>\n
imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
          Section 433 A was added by criminal<\/p>\n
Law Amendment Act, 1978.              Object of this<\/p>\n
section is to prescribe minimum 14 years<\/p>\n
imprisonment for those, who are convicted<\/p>\n
for an offence, one of punishment for which<\/p>\n
is death, or a person whose death sentence<\/p>\n
has been commuted to life sentence. The<\/p>\n
non-obstanate clause makes it clear that<\/p>\n
such       minimum             imprisonment           is<\/p>\n
notwithstanding         any   thing      contained    in<\/p>\n
Section    432       I.P.C.    Section      432   I.P.C.<\/p>\n
empowers the appropriate Government to<\/p>\n
suspend or remit sentence of a convict,<\/p>\n
undergoing       imprisonment         for    satisfying<\/p>\n
sentence imposed”.\n<\/p>\n
          Section 433(A) makes the actual<\/p>\n
detention in prison for full 14 years as a<\/p>\n
mandatory minimum sentence in two classes
\n                10<\/span><\/p>\n
of case (i) where the offender has been<\/p>\n
punished with death but      the culprit   could<\/p>\n
not be punished with death, as he survived<\/p>\n
through commutation      to life imprisonment<\/p>\n
and (ii) offences in which    though there is<\/p>\n
provision for punishing with death sentence<\/p>\n
being maximum sentence, the culprit has<\/p>\n
been awarded life imprisonment.        Section 5<\/p>\n
of the Cr.P.C. provides that ordinarily the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. will not affect any special law, any<\/p>\n
local law or any special jurisdiction or power,<\/p>\n
or any special forum of procedure but the<\/p>\n
code will override the special law where the<\/p>\n
statute do not specify any particular mode<\/p>\n
enforcing a new obligation created by it. The<\/p>\n
short sentencing measures and Remission<\/p>\n
Scheme promulgated by various State are<\/p>\n
not saved by Section 5 Cr.P.c. as Section<\/p>\n
433 (A) is not overridden by it. Section<\/p>\n
433(A) Cr.P.C. applies in preference to any<\/p>\n
local   laws   because   section   5   specially
\n                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
declares that specific provision if any, to the<\/p>\n
contrary, will prevail upon any special or<\/p>\n
local   law.          Section     433(A)      creates      an<\/p>\n
obligation and protects that for these two<\/p>\n
special   classes          of   offence.     In     case   of<\/p>\n
conviction for such offences and sentence<\/p>\n
actual duration of imprisonment cannot be<\/p>\n
less than 14 years. In the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
there are several offences in which maximum<\/p>\n
punishment            is    death    and          alternative<\/p>\n
punishment is life imprisonment. The list of<\/p>\n
such offences are as follows:-<\/p>\n
\n\nSection        121 Waging,        or       Death           or\nI.P.C              attempting     to       imprisonment\n                   wage         war        for life and fine\n                   against    Govt.\n                   of India\nSection        132 Abetment       of       Death or with\nIPC                mutiny,          if     imprisonment\n                   mutiny          is      for    life, or\n                   committed      in       imprisonment\n                   consequence             for ten years\n                   thereof.                and fine\nSection        194 Giving         or       Death        or\nIPC                fabricating false       imprisonment\n                   evidence with           for life or R.I.\n                   intent         to       for ten years\n                   procure                 and fine\n                   conviction     of\n                   capital offence.\n                   If      innocent\n                   person         be\n                   thereby\n               12<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                convicted and\n                executed.\nSection     302 Punishment for Death            or\nIPC             murder          imprisonment\n                                for life and fine\nSection     303 Punishment for Death\nIPC             murder by life-\n                convict.\nSection     307 Attempt by life Death           or\nIPC             convict      to imprisonment\n                murder, if hunt for ten years\n                is caused.      and fine\nSection    364A Kidnapping for Death            or\nIPC             ransom etc.     imprisonment\n                                for life and fine.\nSection     396 Murder       in Death,\nIPC             dacoity         imprisonment\n                                for life, fine or\n                                rigorous\n                                imprisonment\n                                for ten years.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
          For such offences if death sentence<\/p>\n
has been awarded but later on commuted in<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life or life sentence has<\/p>\n
been   awarded       which   is   the   alternative<\/p>\n
sentence, there will be application of section<\/p>\n
433(A) Cr.P.C. The scheme of the remission<\/p>\n
introduced by the State Government cannot<\/p>\n
be contrary to the provisions under Section<\/p>\n
433A Cr.P.C.       In AIR 1980 SC 2147 ( Maru<\/p>\n
Ram and others Vs. Union of India and ors),
\n                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
this view has been propagated. Full Bench<\/p>\n
decision of this Court reported in 1984 PLJR<\/p>\n
724 has also canvassed this view that in a<\/p>\n
case where the conviction is                    for offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302 I.P.C., the life convict is<\/p>\n
not entitled to the benefit of States Policy of<\/p>\n
remission in contravention of the provision<\/p>\n
under section 433(A) Cr.P.C., unless has<\/p>\n
remained in custody for 14 years.<\/p>\n
           So far Clause (Gha) and (Ch) of<\/p>\n
Clause         (iii)        of   the    notification   dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2002 is concerned, it is applicable in<\/p>\n
case      of    such         persons,    who    have   been<\/p>\n
convicted for offence in which maximum<\/p>\n
punishment is imprisonment for life but there<\/p>\n
is   no        alternative        punishment      of   death<\/p>\n
provided under the Indian Penal Code. Such<\/p>\n
convicts, if suffering from incurable disease<\/p>\n
or have become aged more than 65 years<\/p>\n
can be benefited under Sub Clause (Gha)<\/p>\n
and (Cha) of Clause (iii) in notification. The
\n               14<\/span><\/p>\n
case of the petitioners not coming within the<\/p>\n
such    provisions   as    on    account       of    their<\/p>\n
conviction under section 302 IPC, in which<\/p>\n
maximum      sentence       is   death        with     life<\/p>\n
imprisonment as an alternative sentence,<\/p>\n
they cannot be benefited under                      Clause<\/p>\n
(Gha) and (Ch) of the notification.<\/p>\n
          In AIR 1980 S.C. 2147, it is held:-<\/p>\n
“The fasciculus of clauses (Ss. 432, 433 and<\/p>\n
433-A), read as a package, makes it clear<\/p>\n
that while the Code does confer wide powers<\/p>\n
of remission and commutation of sentences it<\/p>\n
emphatically intends to carve out an extreme<\/p>\n
category from the broad generosity of such<\/p>\n
executive power. The non obstante clause, in<\/p>\n
terms    excludes    S.    432    and    the        whole<\/p>\n
mandate     of     the    rest   of     the     Section<\/p>\n
necessarily subjects the operation of S. 433<\/p>\n
(A) to a serious restriction. This embargo<\/p>\n
directs that commutation in such cases shall<\/p>\n
not     reduce     the     actual     duration          of
\n                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
imprisonment below 14 years. Whether that<\/p>\n
Section suffers from any fatal constitutional<\/p>\n
infirmity    is    another     matter       but   it   does<\/p>\n
declare emphatically an imperative intent to<\/p>\n
keep imprisoned for at least 14 years those<\/p>\n
who fall within the sinister categories spelt<\/p>\n
out in the operative part of Section 433-A. If<\/p>\n
S. 433 A, by sheer repugnancy, forces a<\/p>\n
permanent holiday on the prison remission<\/p>\n
laws of the States vis a vis certain classes of<\/p>\n
\u201elifers\u201f, the former must prevail in situation of<\/p>\n
irreconcilability. Assuming that Rules under<\/p>\n
the Prisons Act are valid and cannot be<\/p>\n
dismissed         as   State   law,     a    harmonious<\/p>\n
reading of S. 433A and the Prison Rules must<\/p>\n
be the way out. Otherwise, the latter law<\/p>\n
must prevail or implied repeal may be<\/p>\n
inferred.”\n<\/p>\n
        The provisions under Section 433A<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. is prospective, as such persons who<\/p>\n
have been convicted by the trial Court before
\n                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
December 18, 1978 shall be entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefits accruing to them from the remission<\/p>\n
scheme or short sentencing projects as if<\/p>\n
Section 433A did not stand in their way.<\/p>\n
These two petitioners were convicted by the<\/p>\n
trial Court in 1987 much after December, 18<\/p>\n
1978, as such they are not entitled for<\/p>\n
benefit of any earlier remission scheme or<\/p>\n
short    sentencing           projects   of   the    State<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
             One of the questions which was also<\/p>\n
raised at the time of hearing of the case, as<\/p>\n
to whether in exercise of power conferred<\/p>\n
under    section         59    of   Prisons   Act,    any<\/p>\n
amendment could have been brought in<\/p>\n
relation to premature release or remission of<\/p>\n
prisoner.” Rule 59 provides a long list of<\/p>\n
items relating to which rule can be framed by<\/p>\n
the State Government, consistent with this<\/p>\n
Act. I find that in this list of subjects, item<\/p>\n
no.     27     relates    to     admission,     custody,
\n                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
         employment and release of prisoners. In this<\/p>\n
         view    item     no.     27,     authorizes        State<\/p>\n
         Government to make rule in the matter of<\/p>\n
         premature release of prisoners. Amendment<\/p>\n
         has been brought in exercise of powers<\/p>\n
         conferred under Section 59 of the Prisoners’<\/p>\n
         Act.\n<\/p>\n
                     Considering all these facts, we are of<\/p>\n
         the view that none of these petitioners are<\/p>\n
         entitled for their premature release under sub-<\/p>\n
         Clause (Gha) and (Ch) of clause (iii) of the<\/p>\n
         notification (Annexure-3), since they have been<\/p>\n
         convicted under Section 302 I.P.C., and their<\/p>\n
         cases being fully covered by           provisions of<\/p>\n
         Section 433(A) of the Cr.P.C. They can claim<\/p>\n
         their   for    premature     release    only       after<\/p>\n
         remaining in custody for 14 years without<\/p>\n
         remission and 20 years with remission.<\/p>\n
                  This writ application, as such is<\/p>\n
         rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Akumar                              ( Mridula Mishra, J.)\n 18<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n     (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1054 of 2010 1. RAMASHRAY SHARMA SON OF LATE TRIVENI SINGH 2. RAM KISHORE SHARMA SON OF LATE TRIVENI SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nRamashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2201,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011"},"wordCount":2201,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011","name":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:14:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-sharma-amp-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-amp-ors-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramashray Sharma &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 25 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}