Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 357 (ALL)

RAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-01-28

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners before this Court in above writ petitions are seeking for their premature release on the ground that they have been confined in jail to serve life imprisonment for considerably long period. Learned counsels for the petitioners have contended that without assigning proper reasons Government in limine rejected representation of two petitioners for their premature release which needs proper consideration. Even representation/application of petitioner, Jaivir Singh for premature release is pending before the Government and has not been considered and disposed of as yet. It is also matter of personal liberty of a person sentenced for life who is undergoing imprisonment whereas in some States the life imprisonment is even for 14 years or 16 years likewise, where policy decision has been taken or proper reasons has been given by the State Government for not releasing them premature. Learned counsels have contended that impugned orders passed rejecting representation given by the petitioners are without basis and without any rhyme and reason. It is case of discrimination in the matter of treatment of premature release of accused as is prevalent in different parts of country and the States at large. It is contended that petitioners have served more than 17 years', 25 years and 28 years respectively against their conviction for life and they may be ordered to be released forthwith. It is submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that matter of premature release of the petitioners has been considered properly by the State Government and accordingly the representations submitted by the petitioners were rejected. He has further contended that there is no error in the impugned orders passed by the Government rejecting the representation of the petitioners. Hon'ble Apex Court in decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1676 of 2012 on 17th October, 2012 (Guru Prasad and another Versus State of U.P. and others) has noticed that the appellants have served 18 and half years in jail and they were entitled for premature release in view of policy laid down by the State of U.P. itself. Referring to the Government Order dated 11.1.2010, the appellants were released from jail, subsequently the said notification was quashed by High Court as such they were taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Referring to the Government Order dated 11.1.2010, the appellants were released from jail, subsequently the said notification was quashed by High Court as such they were taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Referring to the judgment of the State of Haryana and another Versus Jagdish and others reported in AIR 2010 SC the Apex Court has stated that the policy applicable on the date of conviction of a person could be applicable for considering the premature release unless subsequent policy had been more beneficial to the convicts. Noting submission of learned counsel representing the respondent before Apex Court, it was observed that it could be left open to the State to consider and examine individual cases and pass appropriate order in the light of law laid down in the aforesaid case. Pursuant to the order of Apex Court in the case of Laxman Bhasker Versus Union of India 2000, Cr.L.J.1471, the State Government has issued circular dated 6th September, 2004 through Principal Secretary (Prisons) wherein several guidelines have been framed for premature release of life convicts. It is also in the said circular that District Magistrate, Probation Officer and Superintendent of Police of concerned District have to scrutinize the conduct and behaviour of convicts who have been confined in jail since long and submit report to the State Government in this regard. Similarly in the cases in hand no such report has been completed as per norms laid down in the said circular issued in the interest of life convicts and for their personal liberty as well. The Apex Court referring to the submission made by counsel for the accused directed that State Government shall take appropriate decision in the matter. It is said that in case no order is passed in favour of convict by examining individual case by State authorities, the authority must give specific reasons for not releasing the person on premature release. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guru Prasad and another Versus State of U.P. and others, enlarged the appellants on bail till disposal of appellants' case. Of course, in the cases in hand, appeal of the petitioners is not pending either before this Court or Apex Court. The petitioners seek premature release. In fact, in the matter of premature release different States are exercising power enshrined in VII Schedule of Constitution of India. Of course, in the cases in hand, appeal of the petitioners is not pending either before this Court or Apex Court. The petitioners seek premature release. In fact, in the matter of premature release different States are exercising power enshrined in VII Schedule of Constitution of India. It is submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that petitioners as on date are aged about 67 years or above. As such they have sought for premature release even on the ground of old age also. It would be high time for the State Government to take decision at the earliest and also take into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case in the matter of their release or non-release, etc. State Government shall examine premature release or non-release of the convicts taking into consideration that various States have taken policy decision to treat minimum imprisonment as 14 years in respect of life sentence, etc. which has been in practice. The State Government shall maintain parity, in the matter of treatment of life convicts with others States of India. Paramount interest of victim as well as those persons who have served more than 14 years in individual case shall be taken into consideration except in the case of hardcore criminals and other cases. Individual case shall be examined by the State Government at the District Level Committee. The State Government shall periodically review such reports supplied by those who conduct inquiry in each case while considering for remission of sentence. As a matter of fact, uniformity must be there in the matter of treatment of each individual convict. In the cases in hand, the impugned orders of rejection passed by State for premature release are too technical and cryptic orders passed without assigning any reason. In these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by State rejecting application/representation for premature release without assigning any reason are set aside. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to make one more representation to the State Government indicating the age and any difficulty faced by the petitioners in this regard and it is for the State Government to take decision in the matter in the given facts and circumstances of individual case. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to make one more representation to the State Government indicating the age and any difficulty faced by the petitioners in this regard and it is for the State Government to take decision in the matter in the given facts and circumstances of individual case. It is for the State Government to review situation whether premature release of the petitioners is permissible or not permissible and whether such release at this stage is harmful to the society or to the security of the family of the victim or the witnesses etc. State will also pass reasoned order in the event petitioners' case is not considered for premature release without being influenced by any observation made in this order. It is for the State Government to take reasonable decision considering the fact that the petitioners are old persons aged above 67 years and they have served more than 17 years of imprisonment as life convicts and having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and on humanitarian approach and also considering the personal liberty of petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, within six months' time upon representation submitted by each of the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of copy this order. State Government shall take positive decision in the terms as indicated above and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of finally.