Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhima S/o Rangnath Adagale, a life convict serving sentence in Central Prison, Aurangabad, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking premature release. The petitioner had been convicted for life and had undergone 14 years of imprisonment. He had previously filed Cri.Writ Petition No.613 of 2010, which was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider his application for premature release. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Inspector General of Prison, the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, and the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, rejected the application. The petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the rejection. The court heard the matter and perused the record. The court noted that the pleadings were complete and issued rule, making it returnable forthwith. The court observed that the petitioner had served a substantial period of imprisonment and his conduct in prison was satisfactory. The court held that the respondents had not properly considered the petitioner's application in accordance with the applicable remission rules and policy. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for premature release within a specified period, taking into account the relevant rules and the petitioner's conduct. The court allowed the petition and set aside the earlier rejection order.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Premature Release - Remission Rules - Life Imprisonment - Petitioner, a life convict, sought premature release after serving 14 years of imprisonment - Court held that the respondents must consider the petitioner's application for premature release in accordance with the applicable remission rules and policy - Held that the rejection of the application without proper consideration was arbitrary (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a life convict, is entitled to premature release under the applicable remission rules after serving 14 years of imprisonment, and whether the respondents' rejection of his application was arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the rejection order, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for premature release within a specified period, taking into account the applicable remission rules and the petitioner's conduct.
Law Points
- Premature release
- remission
- life imprisonment
- constitutional validity of remission rules
- consideration of remission policy
- period of imprisonment
- conduct in prison
