The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition of a life convict seeking premature release and held that a convict has no inherent right to claim premature release as life imprisonment means the whole life of the convict in jail and thus, there is no indefeasible right of such prisoner to be unconditionally released on the expiry of any particular term including remissions.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was undergoing a life sentence pursuant to his conviction under Sections 460 and 411 IPC. The petitioner deposited all documents for considering him for premature release in terms of the state policy, however, the state-level committee recommended that the premature release of the petitioner be deferred and re-considered after 20 years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence. The petitioner then applied for premature release and the respondent deferred his case for two years after which the petitioner filed the present petition years of actual sentence and 25 years of total sentence for quashing of this order.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s case was covered by the policy of premature release and the petitioner had completed the requisite period of 20 years and was fully eligible for premature release.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the petitioner had multiple cases registered against him and while in custody, sulfa was recovered from his possession for which he was awarded with punishment of 15 days separate confinement by the Superintendent Jail. It was further argued that the petitioner could not claim premature release as a matter of right unless the State Government commutes the sentence of a life convict through a written order under the appropriate law. It was contended that the state government has from time to time framed premature release policies for consideration of cases of life convicts their premature release but the same was only a concession given by the State Government after considering the behaviour of the convict inside the jail, gravity, nature of offence etc. and the petitioner was a habitual offender and his case was not covered under the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Life Convict Laxman Naskar Versus State of West Bengal & another
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the state government has framed premature release policies from time to time for consideration of cases of life convicts for the premature release but it is only a concession given by the state government looking into various factors such as the conduct of the convict in jail, gravity and nature of the offence etc. and a convict has no inherent right to claim premature release as life imprisonment means the whole life of the convict in jail and thus, there is no indefeasible right of such prisoner to be unconditionally released on the expiry of any particular term including remissions.
The court stated that the appropriate Government must pass a separate order remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence if so warranted and in the present case, the State Level Committee wanted to further watch the conduct of the petitioner on account of his criminal antecedents and for the said reason, the case of the petitioner was to be considered after a period of two years.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of any merits and dismissed it.
Case Title: Subhash vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Case No.: CRWP-6205-2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kartar Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Poswal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
