Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, convicted for offences under Section 302/307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 30.9.2004, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking direction for consideration of his case for premature release under the Uttar Pradesh Government's policy dated 01.8.2018. His appeal before the Allahabad High Court had been pending for 17 years. The petitioner had completed 14 years of imprisonment and claimed eligibility under the U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938, but his application was rejected in 2017. Under the 2018 policy, he was recommended for release on 26.1.2020 but was not released. The State filed a counter affidavit indicating the policy was amended on 28.7.2021, introducing a requirement that convicts must have completed 60 years of age. The core legal issues were whether the petitioner's case should be considered under the 2018 policy or the 2021 amendment, and the validity of the age restriction in the 2021 policy. The petitioner argued he satisfied all conditions under the 2018 policy. The State acknowledged that under the 2018 policy the petitioner would be covered, but under the 2021 policy he did not meet the age requirement. The court, citing State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar, held that the policy prevalent at the time of conviction governs consideration for premature release. The court expressed serious doubt about the validity of the 2021 policy's age clause, noting it would require a 20-year-old offender to serve 40 years before remission consideration. The court issued dual directions: first, for the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case for remission within three months under the 2018 policy; second, for the State Government to re-examine the age clause in the 2021 policy within four months. Given the petitioner had served approximately 22.5 years without remission and 28 years with remission, the court granted bail pending the remission consideration. The writ petition was allowed with parties bearing their own costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Premature Release Consideration - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - Petitioner sought direction for consideration of premature release under 2018 policy - Court held that policy prevalent at time of conviction governs consideration, citing State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar - Directed competent authority to consider petitioner's case within three months (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Law - Remission Policy - Age Restriction Validity - Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 - Court expressed doubt about validity of 2021 policy clause requiring minimum age of 60 years - Noted this would require young offender to serve 40 years before remission consideration - Directed State Government to re-examine this clause within four months (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Long Incarceration - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Petitioner had served 22.5 years without remission and 28 years with remission - Court granted bail pending consideration of remission case due to lengthy incarceration (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's case for premature release should be considered under the 2018 policy despite subsequent 2021 amendment, and whether the 2021 policy's age restriction is valid
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. Court directed competent authority to consider petitioner's case for remission under 2018 policy within three months. Directed State Government to re-examine age clause in 2021 policy within four months. Granted bail to petitioner pending consideration. Parties to bear own costs.
Law Points
- Premature release policy applicable at time of conviction governs consideration
- not subsequent amendments
- State must re-examine arbitrary age restrictions in remission policies
- Pending appeal does not preclude consideration for remission
- Long incarceration warrants consideration for bail pending remission decision
