Calcutta High Court Allows Premature Release Of Prisoner Incarcerated For 23 Yrs, Says Refusal Would Amount To 'Social Crime'

The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for more than 23 years upon being convicted of kidnapping a minor and being part of organized crime.

Upon noting the reformed state of the prisoner after his prolonged incarceration, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

What the petitioner no. 1 did in his 20's at the time of his conviction cannot be sufficient basis for assuming what he will do after his release, more so, since an alternative source of income by agriculture has been clearly portrayed. Our society cannot cast a double stigma on the petitioner no. 1 by punishing him again in refusing premature release and refusing him an opportunity to reintegrate in main-stream society. Such refusal, if comes about, will also be a social crime against the petitioner no. 1 and cannot be approved by a court of law.

 It was submitted that the petitioner was incarcerated for more than 23 years, and had challenged the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to refuse his request for premature release.

It was stated that the reports of the Superintendent of the correctional home where the petitioner was lodged were favourable to him and that even after being on parole for almost 500 days without a police escort, there was no adverse report against him.

It was submitted that the petitioner intended to reside in his village with his family and engage in agricultural activities.

Counsel for the state submitted that the petitioner was 44 years of age, and having committed an organised crime in his 20s, he could commit more such crimes with a professional approach, being labelled a "hardcore criminal."

It was also submitted that the victim's family had objected to his release. 

Upon hearing the counsels, the Court noted that from the record it was clear that throughout his period of incarceration, the petitioner was laborious, hardworking and friendly towards other inmates.

It was also found that when he was allowed parole for 497 days, without police escort, there were no adverse reports against him which clearly indicates that the petitioner no. 1 has lost his inclination and propensity to commit the nature of crime which he committed, which was the reason of his conviction in the first place.

Court noted that there was a real possibility for the petitioner to be rehabilitated with his family by partaking in their agricultural activities.

It also noted that there was nothing on record to support the police's contention that the petitioner would return to his life of crime after being released and that what the petitioner did in his 20s could not be sufficient basis to deny him early release 23 years later.

The paranoid approach of the police authorities is not based on any objective material whatsoever, the Court said.

Here is a case where there are Involved interests on a much larger footing of social needs, and guarantees ensured by the Constitution of India of the individual's life and liberty worth the name, which are competing against the myopic version of the authorities in attributing an apprehension of guilt to the petitioner no. 1 for deeds done two decades back, of which only echoes may remain in the psyche of the petitioner no. 1, it added.

Accordingly, it directed for the petitioner to be released, and set aside the order of the SSRB noting that the petitioner had proven himself worthy of early release and there was a possibility of him being rehabilitated.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 58

Case: Afzal Khan @ Fazo and another v State of West Bengal and others

Case No: WPA 1023 of 2024

Click here to read order