JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. We have taken cognizance of the report submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mani, Member Secretary, Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, Nainital, concerning the inspection of the Central Jail in Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, conducted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, who also serves as the Hon'ble Patron-in-Chief of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, on 17.04.2024. During the inspection, the District Judge of Udham Singh Nagar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Udham Singh Nagar, the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, and officials from the Jail Authorities were present. During the inspection, several details were sought from the Jail Authorities, including: Information about prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than five years, details of prisoners convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or the POCSO Act who claim to be married to the victim or have children, information on prisoners aged 70 years or above who have completed the sentences handed down by the courts, details of prisoners who have been in jail for more than 14 years, clarification on the rules concerning the premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, and any other relevant information. The report has been duly noted, and the registry has been directed to initiate a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the premature release of prisoners who remain incarcerated despite being eligible for release under the State Government’s policy. A notice has also been issued to the learned Government Advocate regarding this matter. 2. During an inspection of the Central Jail, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 17th March 2024, it was discovered that several prisoners remained incarcerated despite having completed their sentences and being eligible for release. This Court has been 167 inmates across the State of Uttarakhand, who qualify for premature release. Their applications for premature release have already been submitted, along with a status report-reflecting a negative recommendation-to the committee comprising the Principal Secretary (Home-Prison), Government of Uttarakhand, and the Principal Secretary (Law and Legislative), Government of Uttarakhand. 3. This Court has been 167 inmates across the State of Uttarakhand, who qualify for premature release. Their applications for premature release have already been submitted, along with a status report-reflecting a negative recommendation-to the committee comprising the Principal Secretary (Home-Prison), Government of Uttarakhand, and the Principal Secretary (Law and Legislative), Government of Uttarakhand. 3. In its order dated 20th March 2024, the Court directed the members of the committee to appear virtually on 21st March 2024 and provide an update on how long it will take to resolve the pending files, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar and Others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252 of 2023]. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a negative report from the Superintendent of Police cannot be used as the sole basis for rejecting the premature release of prisoners. 4. The respondents-officers appeared before this Court and informed that they would review the files of all 167 inmates whose premature release had been recommended by the jail authorities, in accordance assured the Court that a decision would be made by 5:00 p.m. on the same day, and the relevant jail authorities would be duly informed. Subsequently, a compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024 was filed by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The affidavit stated that upon reviewing the cases, the State-level committee found that four inmates had already been released on 29th January 2024 and 21st February 2024, while one female inmate had passed away on 25th January 2024. Regarding the remaining inmates, the committee, due to the urgency of the matter, recommended the premature release of 28 prisoners on 21st March 2024. This decision was promptly communicated to this Hon’ble Court on 22nd March 2024. 5. However, due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, the matter was referred to the Screening Committee on 22nd March 2024 to seek permission from the Election Commission of India. Permission was subsequently granted by the Election Commission via a letter dated 27th March 2024. Copies of the letters dated 22nd March 2024 and 27th March 2024 have been collectively submitted as Annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024. 6. Permission was subsequently granted by the Election Commission via a letter dated 27th March 2024. Copies of the letters dated 22nd March 2024 and 27th March 2024 have been collectively submitted as Annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024. 6. It was further submitted that after obtaining permission from the Election Commission of India, the matter was forwarded to the Hon'ble Governor for approval under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. Following the Governor’s approval, the Secretary, Home, issued Order No. 288/XX-2/2024-1(02)/2024, dated 30.03.2024, directing the premature release of all 28 inmates who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, by remitting the remainder of their sentences. Consequently, all 28 inmates were released on 30.03.2024. A copy of Order No. 288/XX-2/2024-1(02)/2024, dated 30.03.2024, is being marked and filed as Annexure No. 2 to the compliance affidavit. 7. Regarding the consideration of the premature release of the remaining 134 inmates, a letter dated 03.04.2024 was sent to the Registrar General of the Uttarakhand High Court, requesting the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the concerned Court, as per the provisions of Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. and in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ (Criminal) No. 252/2023, Rajo @ Rajwa @Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar and Others. 8. Additionally, it was submitted before this court that the Inspector General of Prisons was instructed to coordinate with the relevant Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police to obtain the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the conviction had been made or confirmed. As of the date of the affidavit, opinions regarding 84 inmates have been received and are being marked and filed as Annexure No. 3 to the compliance affidavit. 9. At this juncture, it is important to clarify that out of the 134 inmates referred to above, 10 belong to the restricted category. The premature release of these inmates was reviewed by the committee chaired by the Chief Secretary in accordance with Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 522 of Chapter XXI of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual on 26.03.2024. The Committee sought the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the conviction was made or confirmed, and out of these 10 inmates, the recommendations for 06 are still awaited. The Committee sought the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the conviction was made or confirmed, and out of these 10 inmates, the recommendations for 06 are still awaited. Regarding the remaining 124 inmates, it was submitted to this court that a meeting was convened on 15.04.2024 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Home and Prisons. During this meeting, the committee considered the premature release of all 124 inmates on a case-by-case basis. The committee recommended the premature release of 08 inmates after reviewing the reports of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the conviction was made or confirmed, as well as the inputs of the District Magistrates, Senior Superintendents of Police, and Jail Superintendents. The recommendations were based on the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances surrounding it, and the inmates' behavior while in prison. 10. It was further submitted that a detailed discussion was held, taking into account the provisions of the Cr.P.C. relevant Supreme Court rulings, and the applicable jail manual. Each case was evaluated on its merits. After careful consideration, the committee concluded that 08 inmates were eligible for release. These 08 inmates have been recommended for premature release, and their cases are currently under review by the Screening Committee constituted by the Election Department for the General Elections of Lok Sabha-2024. Once a decision is made, it will be forwarded to the Election Commission of India for approval. Following approval from the Election Commission, the matter will be submitted to the Hon'ble Governor for final approval under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, as well as Sub-Clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 524 of Chapter XXI of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual. Copies of Clause 524 Sub-Clauses (vi) & (vii) of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual, Article 161 of the Constitution of India, and Section 432(2) of the Cr.P.C. are collectively marked as Annexure Nos. 6, 7, and 8 to the compliance affidavit. 11. Subsequently, a detailed counter-affidavit dated 25th May, 2024, was submitted before this court in compliance with the order dated 07.05.2024, on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttarakhand. 6, 7, and 8 to the compliance affidavit. 11. Subsequently, a detailed counter-affidavit dated 25th May, 2024, was submitted before this court in compliance with the order dated 07.05.2024, on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttarakhand. Upon review of the counter-affidavit, it was reported to this court that out of the 167 convicts, 56 have been recommended for release, 01 has passed away, opinions from the Presiding Courts are still awaited for 41 convicts, and the release of 50 convicts has not been recommended. Additionally, for the remaining 19 convicts who are imprisoned in cases related to property disputes and election-related rivalry, reports from the respective District Magistrates regarding their current status are awaited. 12. By order dated 07.05.2024, the Hon'ble Court directed the Secretary, Home, to file a counter-affidavit explaining why recommendations for the release of the aforementioned 50 convicts were not made. In compliance with this order, the deponent submitted an affidavit, informing the Court that the cases of these 50 convicts were duly considered for premature release by the State Level Committee in accordance with Part XXI (Premature Release) of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual, 2023. It was further submitted that each convict’s case was assessed individually, based on the five factors established by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595 : 2000 SCC (Cr) 509 and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252/2023, Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar, decided on 25.08.2023. The factors considered were as follows: “(i) Whether the offence affects society at large. (ii) The likelihood of the crime being repeated. (iii) The potential of the convict to commit crimes in the future. (iv) Whether any meaningful purpose is served by keeping the convict in prison. (v) The socio-economic condition of the convict's family.” 13. It was further conveyed that after following the due process, the Committee found that a majority of these convicts were imprisoned for committing heinous crimes such as double murder, murder, dowry death, rape, dacoity, robbery, etc., which are of a serious nature. Considering the gravity of these offences, and in the interest of ensuring public safety and security, the Committee decided not to recommend the release of these 50 convicts. Considering the gravity of these offences, and in the interest of ensuring public safety and security, the Committee decided not to recommend the release of these 50 convicts. For the Hon'ble Court’s perusal, the Department has prepared a chart detailing the 50 convicts whose cases were not recommended for premature release. The chart includes information regarding the age of the convicts, the sections under which they were convicted, and the duration of their imprisonment, and has been submitted to this court. The same has been reproduced herein with: S. No. Name of the accused Age of the accused Convicted under sections (IPC) Period of detention 1. Yogesh Rautela 43 302, 364 and 396 18 years 7 months and 10 days 2. Jitendra Singh Rana 54 302 17 years 9 months and 9 days 3. Pyaru alias Pyare Lal 61 376 16y 8m 18d 4. Shiv Prakash Sati 46 302/34 16y 7m 21d 5. Rajkumar alias Rajnu 45 302 16y 4m 29d 6. Dalveer Singh 44 302 16y 0m 4d 7. Pramod Singh 37 302 14y 3m 6d 8. Matbar Singh 60 302/34 15y 11m 0d 9. Smt. Rajni 53 302 14y 5m 27d 10. Narayan Dutt 44 302 15y 6m 0d 11. Bhoola Rai 38 302 15y 3m 4d 12. Rajendra alias Raju 53 364A 17y 11m 3d 13. Darshan Singh 54 60 of Excise Act/302 IPC 14y 1m 13d 14. Bhuwan Singh 48 302 19y 1m 19d 15. Jaipal 45 302 20y 4m 9d 16. Bhopal 53 302 17y 9m 29d 17. Vakeel Ahmed 39 302/120B and 302/34 17y 2m 3d 18. Shivdayal 45 302 19y 8m 25d 19. Madhu alias Madan Singh 41 364A 17y 5m 28d 20. Kundan Singh 37 364A 17y 11m 3d 21. Wasim 50 302 14y 1m 11d 22. Tej Giri 51 302 16y 10m 6d 23. Raees Ahmed 36 302 16y 8m 11d 24. Paritash Rai 41 302 15y 2m 25d 25. Jagdish Ram 38 302 15y 4m 1d 26. Avtar Singh 56 302 16y 0m 19d 27. Sonu 37 396 20y 5m 14d 28. Rafi alias Furkaan 37 396 20y 5m 14d 29. Mohit Dubey 35 302, 376(2)(f) 14y 11m 11d 30. Dalip Singh 41 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d 31. Vimal 42 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d 32. Tota Ram 45 302 17y 7m 14d 33. Ravi Gupta 38 302/34 16y 4m 4d 34. Sonu 37 396 20y 5m 14d 28. Rafi alias Furkaan 37 396 20y 5m 14d 29. Mohit Dubey 35 302, 376(2)(f) 14y 11m 11d 30. Dalip Singh 41 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d 31. Vimal 42 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d 32. Tota Ram 45 302 17y 7m 14d 33. Ravi Gupta 38 302/34 16y 4m 4d 34. Vinod Sahani 45 302 16y 4m 13d 35. Girish Singh 54 302/34 17y 10m 14d 36. Darvaan Singh 45 302 14y 0m 25d 37. Sanjeev 38 302, 364A 14y 0m 9d 38. Rajesh 49 302 17y 6m 27d 39. Nihal Singh 58 376 20y 4m 5d 40. Ramesh 48 302 20y 1m 14d 41. Madan 61 302 16y 8m 2d 42. Shoaib 35 302/34 14y 2m 7d 43. Zeeshan 36 302/34 14y 3m 20d 44. Kamlendra Singh 71 302 16y 1m 4d 45. Ganesh Painyuli 43 302 14y 9m 15d 46. Shahnavaz 37 302/34 14y 4m 11d 47. Shyam Singh 54 302 14y 9m 5d 48. Khempal 49 302/34 and 394/34 22y 3m 28d 49. Jaichand 55 302, 412 and 201 21y 1m 0d 50. Ramesh 49 302, 412 and 201 21y 1m 0d 14. At this stage, it is essential to apply the provisions of the Uttarakhand State (For Sentence Pardon/Premature Release of Convicted Prisoners Punished with Sentence of Imprisonment for Life by the Court) Permanent Policy, 2022 (for short “the 2022 Policy”) to the cases of each of the convicts mentioned above. Rule 4 of the policy outlines the criteria for determining eligibility for premature release or sentence pardon, while Rule 5 pertains to the prohibited category of prisoners who are ineligible for such consideration. The same are reproduced herein with: Consideration of Eligibility for Premature release/sentence pardon 4. Subject this permanent policy for premature release/sentence pardon, all such prisoners, excluding those mentioned in the prohibited category in para no. 6. shall be eligible, by whom: (a) All male/female convicted prisoners sentenced to Imprisonment for life, who have undergone an actual sentence of 14 years without remission and total sentence of 16 years with remission. Subject this permanent policy for premature release/sentence pardon, all such prisoners, excluding those mentioned in the prohibited category in para no. 6. shall be eligible, by whom: (a) All male/female convicted prisoners sentenced to Imprisonment for life, who have undergone an actual sentence of 14 years without remission and total sentence of 16 years with remission. (b) All convicted prisoners undergoing imprisonment for life, who are suffering from the below listed diseases, and who have been provided with the medical certificate by a medical board as provisioned in Para No. 195 of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual and have undergone an actual sentence of 10 years without remission and total sentence of 12 years with remission. 1. Advanced bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis. 2. Incurable Malignancy. 3. Incurable Blood Diseases. 4. Congestive heart failure. 5. Chronic epilepsy with mental degeneration. 6. Advanced leprosy with deformities and trophiculcer. 7. Total blindness of both eyes. 8. Incurable paraplegias and hemiplegics. 9. Advanced Parkinsonism. 10. Brain Tumor. 11. Incurable Aneurysms. 12. Irreversible Kindly Failure. 13. Any other critical mortal illness of like nature: (c) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, who have completed the seventy years of age and have undergone an actual sentence of 12 years without remission and a total sentence of 14 years with remission. (d) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life who have completed the eighty years of age and have been attained and have undergone an actual sentence of 10 years without remission and a total sentence of 12 years with remission. (e) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, whose offences are not covered under any other sub-para except offences mentioned in prohibited category sub-para (vii) and (xi) of para no. 5 and who have spent a sentence of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission. Prohibited Category 5. (i) All such convicted prisoner punished with imprisonment for life, wherein, the Hon'ble Court, has fixed a specific time period in its judgment for detention in prison. (ii) All such convicted prisoners punished with imprisonment for life, wherein, the case investigations were conducted by Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (Sec. 25 of 1946) or National Investigating Agency or by any other investigating agency competent for investigations of offences under any central act, other than the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sec. 02 of 1974). (iii) Such convicted prisoners, who have been convicted of such “offences” under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; those are related to such subjects, to which the executive power of the Union Government extends and to whom, separate sentences of imprisonments have been awarded to be served collectively. Any order to suspend remit or commute the sentences given by State Government shall be only effective, when the order to suspend, remit or commute the sentences of the offence committed, has also been passed by Union Government. (iv) All such convicted prisoners punished with imprisonment for life, who have been convicted for offences related to collectively homicides/ massacre (three or more than three murders). (v) All such convicted prisoners punished with imprisonment for life and, who have also been punished by prison administration for any “minor punishment, other than “waming” as provisioned in Para No. 814 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual during the period of last 2 years and for any “major punishment” as provisioned in Para No. 815 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual in past 5 years. (vi) Such convicted prisons be punished with imprisonment for life, who have also been convicted for any offence during period of suspension of sentence/ parole furlough. (vii) All such convicted prisoners punished with imprisonment for life, who have escaped from prison or police custody during detention period. (viii) Such convicted prisoners, who have been punished with sentence of imprisonment for life, in more than one offence. (ix) Such convicted prisoners, who are not the citizen of India. (x) All such convicted prisoners, punished with imprisonment for life for offences under the followings Acts: (a) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (b) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985). (c) The Prevention of Illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Act No. 42 of 1988). (d) The Customs Act, 1962 (Act no. 52 of 1962). (e) The Official Secrecy Act, 1923. (f) The Foreigners Act, 1946. (g) The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (h) The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act 2012). (d) The Customs Act, 1962 (Act no. 52 of 1962). (e) The Official Secrecy Act, 1923. (f) The Foreigners Act, 1946. (g) The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (h) The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act 2012). (xi) All such convicted prisoners, punished with sentence of imprisonment for life for offences under section 363 A (Kidnapping or maiming a minor for the or purchasing as slaves), 376A (committing rape by imposing criminal intimidation of relatives), 376D (Gang Rape), 376E (Punishment for rape by a rape convict), 489B (sale purchase of forged or counterfeit-currency) and 489D (Counterfeiting of currency notes or bank notes) of Indian Penal Code, 1960. (xii) Professional killers, found guilty for contract killings. (xiii) All such convicted prisoners punished with Sentence of imprisonment for life for offences such as waging a war against the state or attempt to wage a war against the state or abetting to wage a war against the Government under sections 121 to 130 of Indian Penal Code, 1960. (xiv) All such convicted prisoners, punished with Sentence of imprisonment for life for offences for murdering a government official during discharge of his official duty. 15. Upon applying the aforementioned rules to the cases of each convict listed, it becomes evident that several individuals are indeed eligible for premature release but have been incorrectly retained and not recommended for release. To clarify this, we have applied the relevant rules and prepared a list with two categories. The first category addresses whether a person falls under any of the prohibited categories, while the second examines, for those not falling within the prohibited category, their eligibility for premature release, and under which specific criteria they qualify for such release. The prepared chart is as follows: S. No. Name of the accused Age of the accused Convicted under sections (IPC) Period of detention Whether falls under the prohibited category as per Rule 5 of the policy of 2022? Whether eligible for Premature release under the Said Policy or Not? If yes, Which rule of the Policy? 1. Yogesh Rautela 43 302, 364 and 396 18 years 7 months and 10 days Prohibited under Rule 5 (viii) NO 2. Jitendra Singh Rana 54 302 17 years 9 months and 9 days Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 3. Whether eligible for Premature release under the Said Policy or Not? If yes, Which rule of the Policy? 1. Yogesh Rautela 43 302, 364 and 396 18 years 7 months and 10 days Prohibited under Rule 5 (viii) NO 2. Jitendra Singh Rana 54 302 17 years 9 months and 9 days Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 3. Pyaru alias Pyare Lal 61 376 16 y 8m18d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 4. Shiv Prakash Sati 46 302/34 16y 7m 21d Not covered Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 5. Rajkumar alias Rajnu 45 302 16y 4m 29d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 6. Dalveer Singh 44 302 16y 0m 4d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 7. Pramod Singh 37 302 14y 3m 6d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 8. Matbar Singh 60 302/34 15y 11m 0d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 9. Smt. Rajni 53 302 14y 5m 27d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 10. Narayan Dutt 44 302 15y 6m 0d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 11. Bhoola Rai 38 302 15y 3m 4d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 12. Rajendra alias Raju 53 364A 17y 11m 3d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 13. Darshan Singh 54 60 of Excise Act/302 IPC 14y 1m 13d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 14. Bhuwan Singh 48 302 19y 1m 19d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 15. Jaipal 45 302 20y 4m 9d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 16. Bhopal 53 302 17y 9m 29d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 17. Vakeel Ahmed 39 302/120B and 302/34 17y 2m 3d Prohibited under Rule 5 (xii) NO 18. Shivdayal 45 302 19y 8m 25d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 19. Madhu alias Madan Singh 41 364A 17y 5m 28d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 20. Kundan Singh 37 364A 17y 11m 3d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 21. Wasim 50 302 14y 1m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 22. Tej Giri 51 302 16y 10m 6d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 23. Raees Ahmed 36 302 16y 8m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 24. Paritash Rai 41 302 15y 2m 25d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 25. Wasim 50 302 14y 1m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 22. Tej Giri 51 302 16y 10m 6d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 23. Raees Ahmed 36 302 16y 8m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 24. Paritash Rai 41 302 15y 2m 25d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 25. Jagdish Ram 38 302 15y 4m 1d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 26. Avtar Singh 56 302 16y 0m 19d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 27. Sonu 37 396 20y 5m 14d Prohibited under Rule 5 (iv) NO 28. Rafi alias Furkaan 37 396 20y 5m 14d Prohibited under Rule 5 (iv) NO 29. Mohit Dubey 35 302, 376(2)(f) 14y 11m 11d Prohibited under Rule 5(viii) NO 30. Dalip Singh 41 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d Prohibited under Rule 5(xii) 31. Vimal 42 302, 364, 396 18y 7m 16d Prohibited under Rule 5(xii) NO 32. Tota Ram 45 302 17y 7m 14d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 33. Ravi Gupta 38 302/34 16y 4m 4d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 34. Vinod Sahani 45 302 16y 4m 13d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 35. Girish Singh 54 302/34 17y 10m 14 d Prohibited under Rule 5(v) NO 36. Darvaan Singh 45 302 14y 0m 25d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 37. Sanjeev 38 302, 364A 14y 0m 9d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 38. Rajesh 49 302 17y 6m 27d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 39. Nihal Singh 58 376 20y 4m 5d Prohibited under Rule 5 (viii) NO 40. Ramesh 48 302 20y 1m 14d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 41. Madan 61 302 16y 8m 2d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 42. Shoaib 35 302/34 14y 2m 7d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 43. Zeeshan 36 302/34 14y 3m 20d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 44. Kamlendra Singh 71 302 16y 1m 4d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(c) 45. Ganesh Painyuli 43 302 14y 9m 15d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 46. Shahnavaz 37 302/34 14y 4m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 47. Shyam Singh 54 302 14y 9m 5d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 48. Kamlendra Singh 71 302 16y 1m 4d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(c) 45. Ganesh Painyuli 43 302 14y 9m 15d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 46. Shahnavaz 37 302/34 14y 4m 11d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 47. Shyam Singh 54 302 14y 9m 5d Not Prohibited Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 48. Khempal 49 302/34 and 394/34 22y 3m 28d Prohibited under Rule 5(viii) NO 49. Jaichand 55 302, 412 and 201 21y 1m 0d Prohibited under Rule 5(viii) NO 50. Ramesh 49 302, 412 and 201 21y 1m 0d Prohibited under Rule 5(viii) NO 16. Upon careful examination of the above list, it is evident that, with the exception of the individuals listed as Serial Nos. 1, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 39, 48, 49, and 50, all other 38 inmates qualify for premature release according to the 2022 Policy. 17. Thereafter, on 27.09.2024, the learned State Counsel placed before this Court a letter dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-R1), informing that the committee made decisions regarding 97 convicted inmates. This included 60 remaining convicts from the list of 167 inmates and 37 newly added convicted inmates for consideration. The letter contains a list of 18 inmates whose cases have been recommended for release by the Committee, and another list of 34 inmates whose cases have not been recommended for release. 18. After examining the list of 34 inmates, whose case have not been recommended for release, it has been found that as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, they do not fall in the Prohibited Category. The list of such 34 inmates is reproduced herein-below: S. No. Name of the accused Age of the accused Convicted under sections Period of detention Whether falls under the prohibited category as per section 5 of the policy of 2022 Whether eligible for Premature release under the Said Policy or Not? If yes, Which rule of the Policy? 1. Aslam S/o Sharafat 49 302 IPC 17 Years 01 Month 5 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 2. Yashwant Singh S/o Mohan Singh 42 302, 34, 120B IPC 16 Years 07 Months 3 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 3. Raju S/o Ved Prakash Buksha 48 302, 376(1) and 201 IPC 18 Years 06 Months 8 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 4. Yashwant Singh S/o Mohan Singh 42 302, 34, 120B IPC 16 Years 07 Months 3 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 3. Raju S/o Ved Prakash Buksha 48 302, 376(1) and 201 IPC 18 Years 06 Months 8 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 4. Vipin Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad 43 302, 34, 120 B, IPC and 25 arms act 14 years 00 months 12 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 5. Narendra Singh S/o Rajendra Singh 40 302, 120B, 316/24 IPC 14 years 06 months 21 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 6. Ganesh Singh S/o Ragunath Singh 57 302, 34, 323, 34 IPC 15 Years 03 Months 03 Days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 7. Ganga Singh S/o Ragunath Singh 59 302, 34, 323, 34 IPC 15 Years 02 Months 19 Days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 8. Kanhiya S/o Bhullan 51 302/149, 307/149, 148 IPC 14 Years 01 Month 03 Days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 9. Jagir Singh S/o Gurmej Singh 39 302, 376 17 Years 04 Months 19 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 10. Kailash Ram S/o Dhani Ram 53 302, 201 15 Years 07 Months 25 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 11. Adarsh Shukla S/o Satyadev Shukla 36 364A, 302, 201 20 years 05 Months 07 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 12. Harish Chandra Singh S/o Raje Singh 41 304B, 498A IPC 14 years 06 Months 01 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 13. Rajendra Singh S/o Surjan Singh 42 302, 201 15 years 07 Months 22 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 14. Naveen Chandra Kandpal S/o Daya Kisan 39 304B, 498A IPC 16 years 07 months 05 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 15. Harish Singh S/o Gopal Singh 36 302 IPC 16 years, 04 months 22 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 16. Arjun S/o Bala Singh 46 302, 376, 201/34 IPC 20 years, 03 Months 06 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 17. Aftab Ahmad Ansari S/o Shabir Ahmad 42 302, 376, 201 IPC 20 Years, 03 Months 17 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 18. Nandan Singh S/o Bache Singh 69 302/34 IPC 15 years 11 Months 10 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 19. Aftab Ahmad Ansari S/o Shabir Ahmad 42 302, 376, 201 IPC 20 Years, 03 Months 17 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 18. Nandan Singh S/o Bache Singh 69 302/34 IPC 15 years 11 Months 10 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 19. Puran Singh S/o Bache Singh 66 302/34 IPC 15 years 11 Months 11 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 20. Amir S/o Hamid 43 302/34, 376, 201/34 IPC 20 Years, 03 Months 06 Days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 21. Virendra S/o Shiv Prasad 66 302/149, 325/149 IPC 15 years, 10 Months 04 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 22. Ganga Ram S/o Rampal 51 302/34 IPC 16 Years 03 Months 15 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 23. Surjeet Singh S/o Chanan Singh 60 302/149, 148 IPC 16 years 11 Months 15 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 24. Dharmendra S/o Dhruv Singh 37 302, 364A, 201 IPC 16 years, 02 Months 05 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 25. Sundar Singh S/o Har Singh 53 302, 436, 307 IPC 21 years, 03 months 01 day Yes, under Rule 5 (iv) No 26. Chandrapal S/o Govind Singh 35 376 14 years 02 Months 24 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 27. Jia Lal S/o Multani 65 302, 376(2) (f), 363, 201 IPC 17 Years 09 Months 15 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 28. Sukhpal S/o Ram Singh 52 302, 364 IPC 17 years 00 Months 09 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 29. Deep Chand S/o Banarsi Jamadar 66 376, 201 IPC 18 Years 08 Months 01 Day No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 30. Sushil S/o Mahendra 51 302/34, 323/34 IPC 15 Years, 07 Months, 25 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 31. Kailash Singh S/o Ram Singh 51 302/34, 201/34 IPC 14 years 05 months 09 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 32. Iklaq S/o Sabbir 46 302/149, 147, 148 IPC 17 years 04 months 01 day No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 33. Abad S/o Saeed 39 302, 34 IPC and 4/25 arms act 15 years 01 month 11 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 34. Ompal S/o Raghubir 51 302/34, 307/34 IPC 14 years 05 months 28 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 19. Abad S/o Saeed 39 302, 34 IPC and 4/25 arms act 15 years 01 month 11 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 34. Ompal S/o Raghubir 51 302/34, 307/34 IPC 14 years 05 months 28 days No Yes, Covered by Rule 4(a) 19. Out of these 34 inmates, one inmate, namely Sunder Singh, S/o Har Singh, at Sl. No. 25, falls under prohibited category as per Rule 5 (iv) of the 2022 Policy, because he has been convicted for multiple murders. Therefore, the Committee has rightly not recommended his case for premature release. After going through the list, it is found that 33 inmates do not fall under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy. 20. After getting report from the Presiding Officer, their cases ought to have been recommended for release keeping in view the fact that they do not fall under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5. Hence, the above said inmates are also eligible for premature release. 21. Reference can now be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Writ Petition (Crl) No. 49 of 2022, dated 22.04.2022, where the Supreme Court was considering the case of a single accused, and observed that the discretion vests with the government to suspend or remit the sentence, the executive power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The decision of the Government has to be lawful and fair as per Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and the decision to grant remission should be informed, fair and reasonable. 22. As per the above said judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present case, even if the inmates are not covered under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, no such reasons have been given as to why they cannot be released, especially, keeping in view that recommendation for release of almost 74 inmates has been made. 23. 23. Reference can now be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. State of Bihar, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252 of 2023, dated 25.08.2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the case of premature release of a convict, who was in custody for the last 24 years without grant of remission or parole, and that accused was 40 years of age when he committed the crime. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition. 24. Since this Court had initiated suo motu proceedings in this case, keeping in view the above fact, this Court proceeds to give direction for release of seventy-one inmates who have not been recommended for their premature release and other inmates, who are not covered under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy. Keeping in view the undergoing period of these inmates, the Court restraints to give direction to the respondents to reconsider the cases of those accused, whose cases have not been recommended for release, but are not covered under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already observed that the cases of premature release have to be decided by the Government not in an arbitrary manner. The decision of the Government has to be lawful and fair as per Article 14 of the Constitution. During the pendency of this writ petition, following data has been considered: Total inmates considered for release 167 + 37 = 204 Inmates recommended for release by the Committee 74 Direction given by this Court for consideration for premature release 38 + 33 = 71 Reports awaited with regard to the consideration of premature release 45 Inmates died in custody 01 25. Reference can now be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hussainara Khatoon & others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 ; In Re-Human Conditions in 1382 Prisons, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013, dated 23.08.2024. The case of Hussainara Khatoon, deals with release of the under-trial prisoners where they could not furnish the surety bonds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given direction that if a convict is unable to furnish surety bonds, he must be released on the personal bond. The case of Hussainara Khatoon, deals with release of the under-trial prisoners where they could not furnish the surety bonds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given direction that if a convict is unable to furnish surety bonds, he must be released on the personal bond. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the procedure which keeps such large numbers of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21. Imprisonment of undertrials is a denial of human rights and withholding of basis freedom, and if the accused is not able to furnish surety bond due to his/ her financial condition, he/ she can be released on furnishing personal bond. 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re-Human Conditions in 1382 Prisons, has given directions for releasing the under trials, who are in prison on the ground that they cannot submit personal bond for their release on bail, and it has further given direction that if the under trial is unable to submit surety bond, he/ she should be released on personal bond. 27. The ratio of the above said judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the present case as well. While releasing the inmates, whose cases have been recommended by the State, as well as those inmates, who do not fall under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, as reflected in Paragraph Nos.16 and 18, they should be released. They are also directed to be released keeping in view that if some of the inmates are not able to furnish surety bonds, they can be released on furnishing personal bonds. 28. Since as per the letter dated 23.09.2024, forty-five cases have been sent for consideration to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Magistrates and the Presiding Officers of the concerned Court, and they have been asked to submit their respective reports. Since these cases will take some time, this petition is being disposed of by giving direction to the respondents-State to consider the cases of all the inmates as per the observations made in this judgment after following due process of law and after examing the 2022 Policy. 29. Since these cases will take some time, this petition is being disposed of by giving direction to the respondents-State to consider the cases of all the inmates as per the observations made in this judgment after following due process of law and after examing the 2022 Policy. 29. This Court further appreciates the steps taken by the respondents since this Court had issued suo motu notice on 20.03.2024 in considering the case of almost 167 inmates for premature release. The object of keeping the inmates in custody is to reform them so that when an accused comes out from jail, he can lead a positive and healthy life. Detaining them beyond the period of conviction will not be good for their mental health as well, and in this backdrop, the State will consider all the pending 45 cases. After examining the cases of 45 inmates, report will be sent to this Court after six weeks. 30. The writ petition is being disposed of in the above terms. 31. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.