Supreme Court Keeps In Abeyance Its Order On Arrest Of Prisoners Who Were Given Premature Release In UP
The Supreme Court has kept in abeyance its order requiring the arrest of prisoners who were given premature release in Uttar Pradesh based on a January 10 order of the Allahabad High Court.
In this case, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal on October 15 directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit on the life convicts who were given premature release based on the High Court's order which passed general directions on the premature release of prisoners.
Although this order was overruled by a full bench of the High Court, where it was stated that only the State Government and not the Court has the power of remission/premature release, the Court was informed that 29 cases of premature release were considered based on the order.
The State of Uttar Pradesh was found to have not sought back the custody of those convicts released. The Supreme Court had directed that the prisoners be arrested and taken into custody.
Based on this, on November 13, the affidavit filed revealed that in total of 158 prisoners were released in furtherance of the Allahabad High Court's January 10 order.
Out of the 158, 21 prisoners were those who served less than 14 years of sentence.
The affidavit stated that 18 prisoners have been taken into custody, whereas 1 died and 2 are yet to be arrested. The remaining 137 prisoners were those who completed 14 years of sentence.
Additional Advocate General, Garima Prasad, apprised the bench that out of 137 prisoners, 10 prisoners were granted remission.
The Court has now sought the details of the remaining 127 prisoners.
The Court stated: "We require the jailwise details of the prisoners who have completed 14 years of sentence, minimum period required for remission and consideration of their cases for remission. The Secretary (Prisons) to file his affidavit."
"In the meantime, the order passed earlier regarding arrest of those persons who have served more than 14 years of sentence be not given effect to until the next date of listing," the Court added.
Further, the Court clarified that those who have been arrested based on the Supreme Court's order but have completed 14 years, may be at liberty to apply to the concerned authority for remission as per the State's remission policy.
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.
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
Appearances: Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR (Petitioner) & Garima Prasad, AAG, Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate (Respondents)