Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt's 'Stereotype' Order Refusing Premature Release Benefit To Convict Who Spent 25 Yrs In Jail
On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government's order denying the benefit of premature release to a 79-year-old convict who had already served 25 years in jail, including remission. Criticizing the government's order as "stereotyped" and lacking individual consideration, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi directed the...
On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government's order denying the benefit of premature release to a 79-year-old convict who had already served 25 years in jail, including remission.
Criticizing the government's order as "stereotyped" and lacking individual consideration, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi directed the government to take a fresh decision on the convict's plea for premature release within six weeks.
Significantly, the Court examined the UP Government's order in light of the Supreme Court 2022 decision in the case of Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P. And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754.
For context, in the Rashidul Jafar case (supra), the top Court issued a slew of directions to the UP Government on premature release. It also directed that eligible prisoners' applications must not be insisted on, and the benefit of a more beneficial policy must be given.
The case in brief
The petitioner (Munna) was convicted of life imprisonment in April 1980 for the commission of offences under Sections 302, 149, and 147 IPC. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court in February 1999.
After serving 25 years in jail, including remission, he filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court. The Top Court granted him bail in January 2018, considering his 18 years of incarceration without remission.
Despite his good conduct, the state government rejected his application for premature release in May 2017. The state government passed the order based on the finding that granting premature release to the petitioner would send the wrong message regarding the judicial system to society.
The order also stated that the petitioner could commit a further offence, as per the jail authority's report. Lastly, it said that since the applicant's physical and mental condition is sound, he is not entitled to the benefit of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938.
Challenging this order, he moved to the Supreme Court, wherein he was asked to move the High Court to challenge the state government's order.
High Court's order
Perusing the state government's order, the High Court, at the outset, observed thus:
“…the impugned order is stereotype order which is passed in almost every case by the state government without application of mind like in the present case. The order has been passed against the intent of section 2 of U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 and against mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Rishidul Jafar @ Chota (Supra)…”
The court noted that the state government's order did not comply with the Supreme Court's directions.
Further, stressing that the petitioner, aged 79, has served over 25 years with remission and has not committed any societal offences and that there is no chance of future recurrence of crime by the petitioner at such an advanced age, the Court quashed the state government's order. It directed it to take a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court's direction.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner: Araf Khan, Lihazur Rahman Khan
Counsel for Respondent: G.A.
Case title - Munna vs. State Of Up. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 432