Modern Penology Seeks To Reform Prisoners Regardless Of Past; Releasing Bowbazar Blast Convict After 31 Yrs Sets Good Precedent For Other Inmates: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has allowed the premature release of a convict incarcerated for more than 31 years in connection with the infamous Bowbazar Blasts which rocked the city more than three decades ago.

In noting the conflict between the human rights of an individual and the interest of the public a large, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

It is not credible that the person who has spent over three decades in custody and deliberately seeks premature release would repeat his offence again which, quite obviously, would send him back into a dark abyss to a point of no-return. Not only will [releaso contribute another reformed citizen to the mainstream society, the same will set a good precedent for other convicts in prison to attempt emulation and shall act as a deterrent for them to be less than perfect in their conduct in prison. 

It cannot be over-emphasized that the primary object in modern penology is reformation and correction and the objective of punishment is to reform the convict and bring him back to society, assisting him in reintegration and not to wreak vengeance on him due to his past conduct, it added.

The Court was considering the prayer for premature release by the petitioner who had been convicted in the Bowbazat Blast case, and he was in custody for almost 31 years, and his prayers for early release had been routinely turned down by the State Sentence Review Board ('SSRB') on the premise that he was a close associate of 'Satta Don' alias Rashid Khan who was the mastermind of the blasts. 

Petitioner contended that after spending three decades behind bars, he was entitled to premature release, and cited various Apex Court judgements to support his arguments.

It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, chances of rehabilitation, and his acceptability to his family needed to be looked into instead of emphasising too much the nature of the crime that occurred more than 30 years ago. 

Respondents on the other hand also relied on Apex Court judgements and stated that the Board had the discretion to turn down appeals for premature release, and the same could not be faulted. 

Court noted the grounds for refusing the petitioner's prayer for premature release.

It was stated that the SSRB took note of objections raised by the police authorities regarding the past antecedents of the petitioner along with his past association with the 'Don'  and held that the petitioner was likely to engage in criminal activities upon release.

However, in noting the grounds for release which were not considered by the SSRB, the Court stated that the Superintendent of the Correctional Home where the petitioner was lodged had expressed that his behaviour was good, and that he had performed his tasks satisfactorily.

It further looked at the report of the Chief Probation-cum-After-care Officer who did not report any adverse findings against the petitioner during his period of probation.

It was further noted that the family members of the petitioner were ready to accept him, and would assist him in rehabilitation. 

Overlooking those factors, the SSRB says that though premature release of the convict has been recommended by the Superintendent, Medinipur Central Correctional Home and Chief Probation-cum-After Care Officer, West Bengal, there is still apprehension about the potentiality of the life convict-in-question and considering his antecedents and associations and “after all the nature of crime”, all members of the Board agree not to recommend premature release, the Court observed.

In looking at the Supreme Court case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2023) the bench stated that the practice of typecasting of convicts through inflexible guidelines based on their crime committed in the distant past had been deprecated by the top court, and that while it may be a starting point, basing a case entirely on the same would "crush the life out of an individual altogether."

Bench stated that in line with the Apex Court's observations, even in the present case, the refusal of premature release was based on the paranoia of the police authorities regarding a crime that happened more than 31 years ago.

As the Supreme Court observed, it is tempting to say that the convict is now a different person altogether, having spent more than 31 years in prison, having lost touch with the outer world and his criminal associations and having been reformed, which is evident form the report of the Superintendent of the concerned correctional home and the Chief Probation-Cum-After Care Officer of the Government itself. It is next to impossible for a person to continue to pretend to be a good man for over thirty years within the extremely restrictive confines of a prison, under constant supervision, scrutiny and monitoring of the jail authorities, the Court said.

It further held that reports from the prison where the petitioner was lodged also revealed that his conduct was good during the entire period of stay and that other factors such as the positive words of the Probation officer, as well as the petitioner's family's willingness to re-integrate him would be considered in favour of the petitioner's plea for release.

It was also noted that the mere past association of the petitioner with a criminal mastermind who was also in custody, would not automatically mean that he would jump back into a life of crime once released.

Calling those who oppose release in such cases the "champions of vengeance," the Court stated that the omnibus knee-jerk allegations of the police could not pass muster in light of the glowing recommendations made by the prison superintendent and probation officer. 

Accordingly, the Court allowed the release of the petitioner.\

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 83

Case: Md. Khalid v The State of West Bengal and others

Case No: WPA 2337 of 2024

Click here to read order