On August 1, the Gujarat High Court strongly criticized the Vadodara Jail authorities for illegally detaining a convict for an additional two months and eight days due to an erroneous calculation of the set-off period under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court found that despite repeated directives, the authorities failed to rectify the mistake, demonstrating what it called “arbitrariness and complete disregard” for the convict’s fundamental rights.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, while quoting Mahatma Gandhi’s words — “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others” — observed that the authorities acted without empathy and continued their illegal and arbitrary conduct, despite ample opportunities to correct their error.
The Court noted that the conviction warrant clearly granted a set-off period of 1 year, 4 months, and 1 day. However, the jail authorities continued to reflect the set-off as only 4 months and 55 days. Rather than complying with directions issued on July 11, 2025, to recalculate and release the convict if found eligible, the Jail Superintendent attempted to justify the flawed calculation.
Justice Suthar stated:
“As per Section 428 of CrPC and Form No. 50 of the Criminal Manual, once the set-off period is specified in the conviction warrant, the convict is required to serve only the remainder of the sentence. In this case, the unilateral reduction of the set-off period led to wrongful confinement and constitutes a violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Jail inmates, though convicts, do not lose their fundamental rights.”
The Court directed the immediate release of the convict on July 30 and provided the authorities with an opportunity to explain their failure. However, instead of showing remorse, they relied on a revoked circular dated November 5, 1988 — a justification that was found contrary to binding precedents, particularly the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Ali Mubarak Ali [(2001) 6 SCC 311].
Taking a serious view of the matter, the Court ruled in favor of compensation. Respondent No. 2 — the Jail Superintendent — voluntarily agreed to compensate the convict. Accordingly, the Court directed payment of ₹50,000 directly to the convict’s bank account.
Further, the High Court ordered:
- A comprehensive recalculation of set-off periods for all convicts across the state, in accordance with their conviction warrants.
- Preparation of updated admission cards and jail records as per the circular dated August 1, 2025.
- Judicial officers acting as jail visitors to verify that no undertrial or convict remains detained even a minute beyond their legally mandated custody.
Emphasizing the need for humane treatment of inmates, the Court remarked that prison administration must adhere to the Model Jail Manual and prioritize rehabilitation. It further instructed the Inspector General of Prisons to foster an environment within jails akin to an “Ashram”, promoting compassion and dignity.
Picture Source :
