Calcutta High Court: An application has been filed in a contempt petition seeking compliance with the recommendations of the State Sentence Review Board after the Judicial Department is unable to locate the file relating to a direction of premature release of the applicant. Shampa Sarkar, J., directs correctional home authority to release applicant1 based on the recommendation made by the State Sentence Review Board.
The case revolves around the premature release of an individual (applicant 1), who remains in custody despite a recommendation from the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) for their release. The SSRB, an authority tasked with reviewing cases for premature release, had decided in favor of the applicant. However, procedural delays and administrative lapses within the Judicial Department of the State of West Bengal have resulted in the applicant continuing to languish in custody. The issue gained judicial attention when multiple proceedings were initiated to ensure compliance with the SSRB’s recommendation.
Initially, a contempt application was filed before a coordinate bench of this Court, highlighting the delay in implementing the SSRB’s recommendation. In that proceeding, the Court directed the applicant’s release, however, the direction was not adhered to, prompting the filing of a subsequent writ petition alleging non-compliance with the earlier Court orders and inaction by the Judicial Department. The Court once again directed the Judicial Department to ensure that the final release order reached the correctional authorities within two weeks. Despite these clear directions, the release order was not executed, necessitating further judicial intervention.
During the current contempt proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnor that the file concerning the applicant’s release could not be located within the Judicial Department. The contemnor, acknowledging the delay, sought necessary orders from the Court to facilitate the applicant’s release. The counsel further requested that appropriate instructions be issued to the correctional home authorities based on the SSRB’s recommendation.
The Court acknowledged the submission made by the counsel for the alleged contemnor that appropriate directions to the correctional home authorities would expedite the applicant’s release.
The Court directed the alleged contemnor to communicate the Court’s order to the correctional home authorities along with necessary instructions for the applicant’s release based on the SSRB’s recommendation.
[Afzal Khan v Siddhartha Kanjiwal, CPAN 1685 of 2024 In WPA No. 17019 of 2024, decided on 10-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Lipika Das …for the Applicant
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Mr. Biman Halde for the Alleged Contemnor