Perplexed At Life Convict Given Remission After 2.5 Years Imprisonment, Supreme Court Seeks UP Authorities' Explanation
While setting aside an order for the premature release of a life convict having spent only 2 years, 5 months and 12 days of imprisonment, the Supreme Court recently took a strong view against the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities for recommending his name for remission despite the State's remission policy mandating 14 years of imprisonment before a life convict could be considered eligible for remission.
In this case, a life convict was given premature release based on an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a different appeal in which general directions were passed on the premature release of prisoners.
Although this order was overruled by a full bench of the High Court, 29 cases of premature release of convicts including of the petitioner were considered and the State of Uttar Pradesh was found to have not sought back the custody of those convicts released.
The bench of Justices J.K. Maheswari and Rajesh Bindal has sought a response from the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Prison) of the State of Uttar Pradesh as to how the jail authorities recommend this case for remission and why the State has not sought custody of the petitioner and other convicts despite the order of the full bench.
It held: "It is quite perplexing that the Petitioner, a convict who has only undergone imprisonment for a total period of 2 years 5 months, which is significantly lesser than the minimum period of imprisonment required for a life convict to be eligible for remission, has been released from prison. It is also not forthcoming from the Respondent as to how the concerned Jail Authorities have recommended the name of the Petitioner for remission being aware of the aforementioned fact."
The authorities will have to file a detailed affidavit within 8 weeks, while the petitioner shall have to surrender within 2 months. In the affidavit, information is sought as to how many convicts have been taken back in custody, whether they were eligible for premature release as per the State's policy and if not, how were their names recommended by the jail authorities.
Brief facts
The present petitioner along with several others were arraigned in an FIR lodged in 1982. Vide a judgment dated February 5, 1983, the petitioner was found guilty by the Trial Court.
He was directed to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. A criminal appeal against the order was dismissed in 2018 by the Allahabad High Court.
Against this, a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court. Through an order dated August 13, 2024, it was dismissed.
However, the Court was apprised that the petitioner was prematurely released from Central Jail, Agra. A letter from the office of the Senior Superintendent of the jail was placed on record before the Court, in which it was stated that the petitioner spent 2 years, 5 months and 12 days till March 22, 2024 the date of his release.
It was informed that the petitioner was released on interim by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on March 15, 2024. Subsequently, he was released from jail on March 22, 2024, as per an order passed in a different appeal.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The question before the Supreme Court was whether a life convict could have been released on bail in furtherance of a passed in a different appeal in Ganesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which he was not even a party.
In Ganesh, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court on January 1 passed general directions instructing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the convicts, whose remission or premature release applications were pending, on interim bail.
However, the present Court noted that a full bench of the High Court subsequently found that Ganesh's judgment is in the teeth of constitution bench decision in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (2015).
The full bench of the High Court in Ambrish Kumar Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh on May 25, 2024 held that the power of remission lies only with the appropriate government and that the division bench could not have issued such directions.
The Court took note of the fact that the CJM's had considered cases of 29 convicts upon receiving a letter dated February 22, 2024, from the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra and in terms of Ganesh's judgment.
On this, the Court stated: "In such view of the matter, it is necessary to find out how many persons all across the State of Uttar Pradesh have been extended the relief of interim bail by different Chief Judicial Magistrates in light of the directions issued in Ganesh (Supra).
Additionally, after the subsequent decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ambrish (Supra), whether any steps have been taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh to seek cancellation of interim bail which has been granted to the Petitioner and similarly placed convicts by the Chief Judicial Magistrates across the State of Uttar Pradesh in light of the judgement in Ganesh (Supra)."
Case Details: Surendra @Sunda v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arising out of Diary No. 28783 of 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 800