Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh @ Sonu Balram Jadhav, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on 21st July 2000. He was arrested on 6th September 1998. After completing 14 years of imprisonment, he sought premature release. The Government of Maharashtra, by an order dated 30th October 2012, rejected his claim, holding that his case fell under category (2)(c) of the Government Resolution dated 15th March 2010, which required him to complete 26 years of actual imprisonment including remission. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He argued that the order was contrary to law and that similarly situated convicts, such as Prakash Vitthal Kharat, had been released after 22 years. The Court observed that the Government Resolution requires a specific finding of exceptional violence to deny premature release after 14 years. Since the State's order did not contain such a finding, it was unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Government Resolution dated 15th March 2010 - The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought premature release after completing 14 years. The State rejected his claim, categorizing his case under category (2)(c) of the Government Resolution, requiring 26 years of actual imprisonment including remission. The Court held that the Government Resolution requires a specific finding of exceptional violence to deny premature release after 14 years, and the State's order was passed without such a finding. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with law. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a life convict, is entitled to premature release after completing 14 years of imprisonment, and whether the State's order requiring 26 years of imprisonment based on Government Resolution dated 15th March 2010 is valid.
Final Decision
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 30th October 2012 and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Premature release
- life imprisonment
- remission
- Government Resolution
- exceptional violence
- Article 226
- Section 302 IPC
