Allahabad High Court: In a writ filed by accused seeking to quash an order dated 15-05-2017 (‘impugned order’) passed by the State, dismissing his application for premature release after being incarcerated for 25 years, in line with the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (‘UP Probation Act’), the Division Bench of Siddharth* and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, JJ, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order, while observing that the State had passed the impugned order without application of mind and against the intent of the UP Probation Act.
The accused had been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 147 of the Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding Sections 103, 190 and 191(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and was sentenced to life imprisonment by a judgment and order dated 19-04-1980, which was later confirmed by the High Court by order and judgment dated 04-02-1999. Upon completing 25 years of incarceration, the accused had approached the Supreme Court vide a writ petition and was granted bail in view of his incarceration of about 18 years, with and without remission in jail by order dated 17-01-2018. However, despite admitting the good conduct of the accused, the State rejected his application for premature release. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the writ petition filed by the accused vide order dated 08-01-2024 and granted him liberty to approach the High Court to challenge the order passed by the State. The accused, therefore, approached this Court to challenge the same.
The accused contended that he was taken to Central Jail, Agra, in compliance with the order dated 08-01-2024 passed by the Supreme Court and had been languishing there ever since. He further submitted that he had undergone incarceration in jail for 25 years, including remission, and was hence entitled to the benefit of the guidelines of the State Government dated 26-09-2003 as well the judgment Rashidul Jafar v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1201 (‘Rashidul Jafar’).
The Court observed that the impugned order passed by the State was only based on the finding that releasing the accused prematurely would send a wrong message about the judicial system in the society. The Court further noted that as per the report of the jail authority, the mental and physical condition of the accused was sound and there was a possibility of him committing further offences, therefore, accused was not entitled to be given the benefit of the UP Probation Act.
The Court said that the impugned order passed by the State was a stereotypical and had been passed without application of mind. The Court observed that the impugned order had been passed contrary to the intent of Section 2 of the UP Probation Act and was also against the mandate laid down in Rashidul Jafar (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court laid down the parameters to be considered for implementation of the policy for premature release of convicts.
The Court noted that none of the guidelines and directions had been considered by the State while passing the impugned order. The Court observed that the accused was 79 years old, had completed his total sentence of 25 years, with remission, and had not committed any offence affecting society. The Court said that there was no chance of future recurrence of offence at such an advanced stage.
The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned order passed by the State, and directed State to decide the application of the accused afresh, in light of the policy dated 01-08-2018, provisions of U.P. Probation Act and the judgment in Rashidul Jafar (Supra) and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Further, such order shall be communicated back to the Court along with an affidavit of an officer of the State.
The Court further directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to Principal Secretary (Home) Government of U.P., Lucknow within one week.
The matter has been listed on 02-09-2024.
[Munna v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3700, decided on 10-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by Justice Siddharth
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for accused/petitioner: Araf Khan, Lihazur Rahman Khan, Advocates
Advocates for State: G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
