Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Principal Secretary on 27 September, 2024
2024:UHC:7207-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 50 OF 2024
27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
Suo Moto PIL: In the matter of Premature release of
the convicts
Versus
Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand
& others
....Respondents.
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General assisted
by Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned
Brief Holder.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
We have taken cognizance of the report
submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mani, Member
Secretary, Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority,
Nainital, concerning the inspection of the Central Jail in
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, conducted by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Uttarakhand, who also serves as the Hon'ble Patron-in-
Chief of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority,
on 17.04.2024. During the inspection, the District
Judge of Udham Singh Nagar, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate of Udham Singh Nagar, the Secretary of the
District Legal Services Authority, and officials from the
2024:UHC:7207-DB
Jail Authorities were present. During the inspection,
several details were sought from the Jail Authorities,
including: Information about prisoners who have been
incarcerated for more than five years, details of
prisoners convicted under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code or the POCSO Act who claim to be married
to the victim or have children, information on prisoners
aged 70 years or above who have completed the
sentences handed down by the courts, details of
prisoners who have been in jail for more than 14 years,
clarification on the rules concerning the premature
release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment,
and any other relevant information. The report has
been duly noted, and the registry has been directed to
initiate a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
concerning the premature release of prisoners who
remain incarcerated despite being eligible for release
under the State Government's policy. A notice has also
been issued to the learned Government Advocate
regarding this matter.
2. During an inspection of the Central Jail,
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 17th March
2024, it was discovered that several prisoners remained
incarcerated despite having completed their sentences
and being eligible for release. This Court has been
2024:UHC:7207-DB
provided with a detailed list of such prisoners, totaling
167 inmates across the State of Uttarakhand, who
qualify for premature release. Their applications for
premature release have already been submitted, along
with a status report-- reflecting a negative
recommendation--to the committee comprising the
Principal Secretary (Home-Prison), Government of
Uttarakhand, and the Principal Secretary (Law and
Legislative), Government of Uttarakhand.
3. In its order dated 20th March 2024, the Court
directed the members of the committee to appear
virtually on 21st March 2024 and provide an update on
how long it will take to resolve the pending files, in light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajo
@ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of
Bihar and Others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
252 of 2023]. In that case, the Supreme Court held
that a negative report from the Superintendent of
Police cannot be used as the sole basis for rejecting the
premature release of prisoners.
4. The respondents- officers appeared before
this Court and informed that they would review the files
of all 167 inmates whose premature release had been
recommended by the jail authorities, in accordance
2024:UHC:7207-DB
with the judgment of the Supreme Court. They further
assured the Court that a decision would be made by
5:00 p.m. on the same day, and the relevant jail
authorities would be duly informed. Subsequently, a
compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024 was filed by
the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The affidavit stated that upon
reviewing the cases, the State-level committee found
that four inmates had already been released on 29th
January 2024 and 21st February 2024, while one female
inmate had passed away on 25th January 2024.
Regarding the remaining inmates, the committee, due
to the urgency of the matter, recommended the
premature release of 28 prisoners on 21st March 2024.
This decision was promptly communicated to this
Hon'ble Court on 22nd March 2024.
5. However, due to the enforcement of the
Model Code of Conduct, the matter was referred to the
Screening Committee on 22nd March 2024 to seek
permission from the Election Commission of India.
Permission was subsequently granted by the Election
Commission via a letter dated 27th March 2024. Copies
of the letters dated 22nd March 2024 and 27th March
2024 have been collectively submitted as Annexure
No.1 to the compliance affidavit dated 17th April 2024.
2024:UHC:7207-DB
6. It was further submitted that after obtaining
permission from the Election Commission of India, the
matter was forwarded to the Hon'ble Governor for
approval under Article 161 of the Constitution of India.
Following the Governor's approval, the Secretary,
Home, issued Order No. 288/XX-2/2024-1(02)/2024,
dated 30.03.2024, directing the premature release of
all 28 inmates who had been sentenced to life
imprisonment, by remitting the remainder of their
sentences. Consequently, all 28 inmates were released
on 30.03.2024. A copy of Order No. 288/XX-2/2024-
1(02)/2024, dated 30.03.2024, is being marked and
filed as Annexure No. 2 to the compliance affidavit.
7. Regarding the consideration of the premature
release of the remaining 134 inmates, a letter dated
03.04.2024 was sent to the Registrar General of the
Uttarakhand High Court, requesting the opinion of the
Presiding Judge of the concerned Court, as per the
provisions of Section 432(2) Cr.P.C., and in compliance
with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Writ (Criminal) No. 252/2023, Rajo @Rajwa
@Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and
Others.
8. Additionally, it was submitted before this
2024:UHC:7207-DB
court that the Inspector General of Prisons was
instructed to coordinate with the relevant Senior
Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police to
obtain the opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court
where the conviction had been made or confirmed. As
of the date of the affidavit, opinions regarding 84
inmates have been received and are being marked and
filed as Annexure No. 3 to the compliance affidavit.
9. At this juncture, it is important to clarify that
out of the 134 inmates referred to above, 10 belong to
the restricted category. The premature release of these
inmates was reviewed by the committee chaired by the
Chief Secretary in accordance with Sub-Clause (v) of
Clause 522 of Chapter XXI of the Uttarakhand Jail
Manual on 26.03.2024. The Committee sought the
opinion of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the
conviction was made or confirmed, and out of these 10
inmates, the recommendations for 06 are still awaited.
Regarding the remaining 124 inmates, it was submitted
to this court that a meeting was convened on
15.04.2024 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,
Home and Prisons. During this meeting, the committee
considered the premature release of all 124 inmates on
a case-by-case basis. The committee recommended the
premature release of 08 inmates after reviewing the
2024:UHC:7207-DB
reports of the Presiding Judge of the Court where the
conviction was made or confirmed, as well as the inputs
of the District Magistrates, Senior Superintendents of
Police, and Jail Superintendents. The recommendations
were based on the seriousness of the crime, the
circumstances surrounding it, and the inmates'
behavior while in prison.
10. It was further submitted that a detailed
discussion was held, taking into account the provisions
of the Cr.P.C., relevant Supreme Court rulings, and the
applicable jail manual. Each case was evaluated on its
merits. After careful consideration, the committee
concluded that 08 inmates were eligible for release.
These 08 inmates have been recommended for
premature release, and their cases are currently under
review by the Screening Committee constituted by the
Election Department for the General Elections of Lok
Sabha-2024. Once a decision is made, it will be
forwarded to the Election Commission of India for
approval. Following approval from the Election
Commission, the matter will be submitted to the
Hon'ble Governor for final approval under Article 161 of
the Constitution of India, as well as Sub-Clauses (vi)
and (vii) of Clause 524 of Chapter XXI of the
Uttarakhand Jail Manual. Copies of Clause 524 Sub-
2024:UHC:7207-DB
Clauses (vi) & (vii) of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual,
Article 161 of the Constitution of India, and Section
432(2) of the Cr.P.C. are collectively marked as
Annexure Nos. 6, 7, and 8 to the compliance affidavit.
11. Subsequently, a detailed counter-affidavit
dated 25th May, 2024, was submitted before this court
in compliance with the order dated 07.05.2024, on
behalf of the Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Uttarakhand. Upon review of the
counter-affidavit, it was reported to this court that out
of the 167 convicts, 56 have been recommended for
release, 01 has passed away, opinions from the
Presiding Courts are still awaited for 41 convicts, and
the release of 50 convicts has not been recommended.
Additionally, for the remaining 19 convicts who are
imprisoned in cases related to property disputes and
election-related rivalry, reports from the respective
District Magistrates regarding their current status are
awaited.
12. By order dated 07.05.2024, the Hon'ble Court
directed the Secretary, Home, to file a counter-affidavit
explaining why recommendations for the release of the
aforementioned 50 convicts were not made. In
compliance with this order, the deponent submitted an
2024:UHC:7207-DB
affidavit, informing the Court that the cases of these 50
convicts were duly considered for premature release by
the State Level Committee in accordance with Part XXI
(Premature Release) of the Uttarakhand Jail Manual,
2023. It was further submitted that each convict's case
was assessed individually, based on the five factors
established by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar
v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595: 2000 SCC
(Cr) 509, and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 252/2023,
Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of
Bihar, decided on 25.08.2023. The factors considered
were as follows:
"(i) Whether the offence affects society at large;
(ii) The likelihood of the crime being repeated;
(iii) The potential of the convict to commit crimes in
the future;
(iv) Whether any meaningful purpose is served by
keeping the convict in prison; and
(v) The socio-economic condition of the convict's
family."
13. It was further conveyed that after following
the due process, the Committee found that a majority
of these convicts were imprisoned for committing
heinous crimes such as double murder, murder, dowry
death, rape, dacoity, robbery, etc., which are of a
serious nature. Considering the gravity of these
2024:UHC:7207-DB
offences, and in the interest of ensuring public safety
and security, the Committee decided not to recommend
the release of these 50 convicts. For the Hon'ble Court's
perusal, the Department has prepared a chart detailing
the 50 convicts whose cases were not recommended
for premature release. The chart includes information
regarding the age of the convicts, the sections under
which they were convicted, and the duration of their
imprisonment, and has been submitted to this court.
The same has been reproduced herein with:-
S. No Name of the Age of Convicted Period of
accused the under detention
accused sections
(IPC)
1. Yogesh Rautela 43 302,364 and 18 years 7
396 months
and 10
days
2. Jitendra Singh Rana 54 302 17 years 9
months
and 9 days
3. Pyaru alias Pyare Lal 61 376 16 y
8m18d
4. Shiv Prakash Sati 46 302/34 16y 7m
21d
5. Rajkumar alias 45 302 16y 4m
Rajnu 29d
6. Dalveer Singh 44 302 16y 0m 4d
7. Pramod Singh 37 302 14y 3m 6d
8. Matbar Singh 60 302/34 15y 11m
0d
9. Smt. Rajni 53 302 14y 5m
27d
10. Narayan Dutt 44 302 15y 6m 0d
11. Bhoola Rai 38 302 15y 3m 4d
12. Rajendra alias Raju 53 364A 17y 11m
3d
13. Darshan Singh 54 60 of Excise 14y 1m
Act / 302 IPC 13d
14. Bhuwan Singh 48 302 19y 1m
19d
15. Jaipal 45 302 20y 4m 9d
16. Bhopal 53 302 17y 9m
29d
2024:UHC:7207-DB
17. Vakeel Ahmed 39 302/120B 17y 2m 3d
18. Shivdayal 45 302 19y 8m
25d
19. Madhu alias Madan 41 364A 17y 5m
Singh 28d
20. Kundan Singh 37 364A 17y 11m
3d
21. Wasim 50 302 14y 1m
11d
22. Tej Giri 51 302 16y 10m
6d
23. Raees Ahmed 36 302 16y 8m
11d
24. Paritash Rai 41 302 15y 2m
25d
25. Jagdish Ram 38 302 15y 4m 1d
26. Avtar Singh 56 302 16y 0m
19d
27. Sonu 37 396 20y 5m
14d
28. Rafi alias Furkaan 37 396 20y 5m
14d
29. Mohit Dubey 35 302,376(2)(f 14y 11m
) 11d
30. Dalip Singh 41 302, 364, 18y 7m
396 16d
31. Vimal 42 302, 364, 18y 7m
396 16d
32. Tota Ram 45 302 17y 7m
14d
33. Ravi Gupta 38 302/34 16y 4m 4d
34. Vinod Sahani 45 302 16y 4m
13d
35. Girish Singh 54 302/34 17y 10m
14 d
36. Darvaan Singh 45 302 14y 0m
25d
37. Sanjeev 38 302, 364 A 14y 0m 9d
38. Rajesh 49 302 17y 6m
27d
39. Nihal Singh 58 376 20y 4m 5d
40. Ramesh 48 302 20y 1m
14d
41. Madan 61 302 16y 8m 2d
42. Shoaib 35 302/34 14y 2m 7d
43. Zeeshan 36 302/34 14y 3m
20d
44. Kamlendra Singh 71 302 16y 1m 4d
45. Ganesh Painyuli 43 302 14y 9m
15d
46. Shahnavaz 37 302/34 14y 4m
11d
47. Shyam Singh 54 302 14y 9m 5d
48. Khempal 49 302/34 and 22y 3m
394/34 28d
49. Jaichand 55 302, 412 and 21y1m 0d
50. Ramesh 49 302, 412 and 21y 1m 0d
2024:UHC:7207-DB
14. At this stage, it is essential to apply the
provisions of the Uttarakhand State (For Sentence
Pardon/Premature Release of Convicted Prisoners
Punished with Sentence of Imprisonment for Life by the
Court) Permanent Policy, 2022 (for short "the 2022
Policy") to the cases of each of the convicts mentioned
above. Rule 4 of the policy outlines the criteria for
determining eligibility for premature release or
sentence pardon, while Rule 5 pertains to the
prohibited category of prisoners who are ineligible for
such consideration. The same are reproduced herein
with: -
Consideration of Eligibility for Premature
release/sentence pardon
4. Subject this permanent policy for premature
release/sentence pardon, all such prisoners, excluding
those mentioned in the prohibited category in para
no.6. shall be eligible, by whom-
(a) All male/female convicted prisoners
sentenced to Imprisonment for life, who have
undergone an actual sentence of 14 years without
remission and total sentence of 16 years with
remission,
(b) All convicted prisoners undergoing
imprisonment for life, who are suffering from the
below listed diseases, and who have been provided
with the medical certificate by a medical board as
provisioned in para no. 195 of the Uttarakhand Jail
Manual and have undergone an actual sentence of 10
years without remission and total sentence of 12
years with remission.
2024:UHC:7207-DB
1. Advanced bilateral pulmonary tuberculosis;
2. Incurable Malignancy;
3. Incurable Blood Diseases,
4. Congestive heart failure;
5. Chronic epilepsy with mental degeneration,
6. Advanced leprosy with deformities and trophic
ulcer,
7. Total blindness of both eyes;
8. Incurable paraplegias and hemiplegics,
9. Advanced Parkinsonism;
10. Brain Tumor,
11. Incurable Aneurysms;
12. Irreversible Kindly Failure,
13. Any other critical mortal illness of like
nature;
(c) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life, who have completed the seventy years of age
and have undergone an actual sentence of 12 years
without remission and a total sentence of 14 years
with remission.
(d) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life who have completed the eighty years of age
and have been attained and have undergone an actual
sentence of 10 years without remission and a total
sentence of 12 years with remission.
(e) All convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment
for life, whose offences are not covered under any
other sub-para except offences mentioned in
prohibited category sub-para (vii) and (xi) of para no.
5; and who have spent a sentence of 20 years without
remission and 25 years with remission.
Prohibited Category
5 (i) All such convicted prisoner punished with
2024:UHC:7207-DB
imprisonment for life, wherein, the Hon'ble Court, has
fixed a specific time period in its judgment for
detention in prison.
(ii) All such convicted prisoners punished with
imprisonment for life, wherein, the case investigations
were conducted by Delhi Special Police Establishment,
constituted under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1947 (Sec. 25 of 1946) or National
Investigating Agency or by any other investigating
agency competent for investigations of offences under
any central act, other than the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Sec. 02 of 1974).
(iii) Such convicted prisoners, who have been
convicted of such "offences" under section 435 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; those are related
to such subjects, to which the executive power of the
Union Government extends and to whom, separate
sentences of imprisonments have been awarded to be
served collectively. Any order to suspend remit or
commute the sentences given by State Government
shall be only effective, when the order to suspend,
remit or commute the sentences of the offence
committed, has also been passed by Union
Government.
(iv) All such convicted prisoners punished with
imprisonment for life, who have been convicted for
offences related to collectively homicides/ massacre
(three or more than three murders).
(v) All such convicted prisoners punished with
imprisonment for life and, who have also been
punished by prison administration for any "minor
punishment, other than "waming" as provisioned in
para no, 814 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual during
the period of last 2 years and for any "major
2024:UHC:7207-DB
punishment" as provisioned in para no. 815 of the
Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual in past 5 years.
(vi) Such convicted prisons be punished with
imprisonment for life, who have also been convicted
for any offence during period of suspension of
sentence/ parole furlough.
(vii) All such convicted prisoners punished with
imprisonment for life, who have escaped from prison
or police custody during detention period.
(viii) Such convicted prisoners, who have been
punished with sentence of imprisonment for life, in
more than one offence.
(ix) Such convicted prisoners, who are not the citizen
of India.
(x) All such convicted prisoners, punished with
imprisonment for life for offences under the followings
Acts-
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985).
The Prevention of Illicit trafficking in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
(Act No. 42 of 1988).
The Customs Act, 1962 (Act no. 52 of 1962).
The Official Secrecy Act, 1923.
The Foreigners Act, 1946.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
The Protection of Children from Sexual offences
Act, 2012 (POCSO Act 2012)
(xi) All such convicted prisoners, punished with
sentence of imprisonment for life for offences under
section 363 A (Kidnapping or maiming a minor for the
2024:UHC:7207-DB
purpose of begging), 370 (Human Trafficking, selling
or purchasing as slaves), 376A (committing rape by
imposing criminal intimidation of relatives), 376D
(Gang Rape), 376E (Punishment for rape by a rape
convict), 489B (sale purchase of forged or counterfeit-
currency) and 489D (Counterfeiting of currency notes
or bank notes) of Indian Penal Code, 1960.
(xii) Professional killers, found guilty for contract
killings.
(xiii) All such convicted prisoners punished with
Sentence of imprisonment for life for offences such as
waging a war against the state or attempt to wage a
war against the state or abetting to wage a war
against the Government under sections 121 to 130 of
Indian Penal Code, 1960.
(xiv) All such convicted prisoners, punished with
Sentence of imprisonment for life for offences for
murdering a government official during discharge of
his official duty.
15. Upon applying the aforementioned rules to
the cases of each convict listed, it becomes evident that
several individuals are indeed eligible for premature
release but have been incorrectly retained and not
recommended for release. To clarify this, we have
applied the relevant rules and prepared a list with two
categories. The first category addresses whether a
person falls under any of the prohibited categories,
while the second examines, for those not falling within
the prohibited category, their eligibility for premature
release, and under which specific criteria they qualify
2024:UHC:7207-DB
for such release. The prepared chart is as follows: -
S.No Name of Age Convicted Period of Whether Whether
the of under detentio falls eligible for
accused the sections n under the Premature
accu (IPC) prohibite release
sed d under the
category Said Policy
as per or Not? If
Rule 5 of yes, Which
the policy rule of the
of 2022 ? Policy?
1. Yogesh 43 302,364 18 years Prohibited NO
Rautela and 396 7 months under Rule
and 10 5 (viii)
days
2. Jitendra 54 302 17 years Not Yes,
Singh 9 months Prohibited Covered by
Rana and 9 Rule 4(a)
days
3. Pyaru 61 376 16 y Not Yes,
alias 8m18d Prohibited Covered by
Pyare Lal Rule 4(a)
4. Shiv 46 302/34 16y 7m Not Yes,
Prakash 21d covered Covered by
Sati Rule 4(a)
5. Rajkumar 45 302 16y 4m Not Yes,
alias 29d Prohibited Covered by
Rajnu Rule 4(a)
6. Dalveer 44 302 16y 0m Not Yes,
Singh 4d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
7. Pramod 37 302 14y 3m Not Yes,
Singh 6d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
8. Matbar 60 302/34 15y 11m Not Yes,
Singh 0d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
9. Smt. 53 302 14y 5m Not Yes,
Rajni 27d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
10. Narayan 44 302 15y 6m Not Yes,
Dutt 0d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
11. Bhoola 38 302 15y 3m Not Yes,
Rai 4d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
12. Rajendra 53 364A 17y 11m Not Yes,
alias Raju 3d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
13. Darshan 54 60 of 14y 1m Not Yes,
Singh Excise Act 13d Prohibited Covered by
/ 302 IPC Rule 4(a)
14. Bhuwan 48 302 19y 1m Not Yes,
Singh 19d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
15. Jaipal 45 302 20y 4m Not Yes,
9d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
16. Bhopal 53 302 17y 9m Not Yes,
29d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
2024:UHC:7207-DB
17. Vakeel 39 302/120B 17y 2m Prohibited NO
Ahmed and 3d under Rule
302/34 5 (xii)
18. Shivdayal 45 302 19y 8m Not Yes,
25d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
19. Madhu 41 364A 17y 5m Not Yes,
alias 28d Prohibited Covered by
Madan Rule 4(a)
Singh
20. Kundan 37 364A 17y 11m Not Yes,
Singh 3d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
21. Wasim 50 302 14y 1m Not Yes,
11d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
22. Tej Giri 51 302 16y 10m Not Yes,
6d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
23. Raees 36 302 16y 8m Not Yes,
Ahmed 11d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
24. Paritash 41 302 15y 2m Not Yes,
Rai 25d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
25. Jagdish 38 302 15y 4m Not Yes,
Ram 1d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
26. Avtar 56 302 16y 0m Not Yes,
Singh 19d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
27. Sonu 37 396 20y 5m Prohibited NO
14d under Rule
5 (iv)
28. Rafi alias 37 396 20y 5m Prohibited NO
Furkaan 14d under Rule
5 (iv)
29. Mohit 35 302,376(2 14y 11m Prohibited NO
Dubey )(f) 11d under Rule
5(viii)
30. Dalip 41 302, 364, 18y 7m Prohibited NO
Singh 396 16d under Rule
5(xii)
31. Vimal 42 302, 364, 18y 7m Prohibited NO
396 16d under Rule
5(xii)
32. Tota Ram 45 302 17y 7m Not Yes,
14d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
33. Ravi 38 302/34 16y 4m Not Yes,
Gupta 4d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
34. Vinod 45 302 16y 4m Not Yes,
Sahani 13d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
35. Girish 54 302/34 17y 10m Prohibited NO
Singh 14 d under Rule
5(v)
36. Darvaan 45 302 14y 0m Not Yes,
Singh 25d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
37. Sanjeev 38 302, 364 A 14y 0m Not Yes,
9d Prohibited Covered by
2024:UHC:7207-DB
Rule 4(a)
38. Rajesh 49 302 17y 6m Not Yes,
27d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
39. Nihal 58 376 20y 4m Prohibited NO
Singh 5d under Rule
5 (viii)
40. Ramesh 48 302 20y 1m Not Yes,
14d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
41. Madan 61 302 16y 8m Not Yes,
2d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
42. Shoaib 35 302/34 14y 2m Not Yes,
7d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
43. Zeeshan 36 302/34 14y 3m Not Yes,
20d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
44. Kamlendr 71 302 16y 1m Not Yes,
a Singh 4d Prohibited Covered
by Rule
4(c)
45. Ganesh 43 302 14y 9m Not Yes,
Painyuli 15d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
46. Shahnava 37 302/34 14y 4m Not Yes,
z 11d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
47. Shyam 54 302 14y 9m Not Yes,
Singh 5d Prohibited Covered by
Rule 4(a)
48. Khempal 49 302/34 22y 3m Prohibited NO
and 28d under Rule
394/34 5(viii)
49. Jaichand 55 302, 412 21y1m 0d Prohibited NO
and 201 under Rule
5(viii)
50. Ramesh 49 302, 412 21y 1m Prohibited NO
and 201 0d under Rule
5(viii)
16. Upon careful examination of the above list, it
is evident that, with the exception of the individuals
listed as Serial Nos. 1, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 39,
48, 49, and 50, all other 38 inmates qualify for
premature release according to the 2022 Policy.
17. Thereafter, on 27.09.2024, the learned State
Counsel placed before this Court a letter dated
2024:UHC:7207-DB
23.09.2024 (Annexure- R1), informing that the
committee made decisions regarding 97 convicted
inmates. This included 60 remaining convicts from the
list of 167 inmates and 37 newly added convicted
inmates for consideration. The letter contains a list of
18 inmates whose cases have been recommended for
release by the Committee, and another list of 34
inmates whose cases have not been recommended for
release.
18. After examining the list of 34 inmates, whose
case have not been recommended for release, it has
been found that as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, they
do not fall in the Prohibited Category. The list of such
34 inmates is reproduced here-in-below:-
S. Name Age Convicted Period of Whether Whether
No of the of under detention falls eligible
accused the sections under the for
accu prohibite Prematur
sed d e release
category under the
as per Said
section 5 Policy or
of the Not? If
policy of yes,
2022 Which
rule of the
Policy?
1. Aslam 49 302 IPC 17 Years No Yes,
S/o 01 Month Covered by
Sharafat 5 days Rule 4(a)
2. Yashwan 42 302, 34, 16 Years No Yes,
t Singh 120B IPC 07 Months Covered by
S/O 3 days Rule 4(a)
Mohan
Singh
3. Raju S/O 48 302, 376 18 Years No Yes,
Ved (1) and 06 Months Covered by
Prakash 201 IPC 8 days Rule 4(a)
2024:UHC:7207-DB
Buksha
4. Vipin 43 302, 34, 14 years No Yes,
Kumar 120 B, IPC 00 months Covered by
S/O and 25 12 days Rule 4(a)
Rajendra arms act
Prasad
5. Narendr 40 302, 120B, 14 years No Yes,
a Singh 316/24 IPC 06 months Covered by
S/O 21 days Rule 4(a)
Rajendra
Singh
6. Ganesh 57 302, 34, 15 Years No Yes,
Singh 323, 34 IPC 03 Months Covered by
S/O 03 Days Rule 4(a)
Ragunat
h Singh
7. Ganga 59 302, 34, 15 Years No Yes,
Singh 323, 34 IPC 02 Months Covered by
S/O 19 Days Rule 4(a)
Ragunat
h Singh
8. Kanhiya 51 302/149, 14 Years No Yes,
S/O 307/149, 01 Month Covered by
Bhullan 148 IPC 03 Days Rule 4(a)
9. Jagir 39 302, 376 17 Years No Yes,
Singh 04 Months Covered by
S/O 19 days Rule 4(a)
Gurmej
Singh
10. Kailash 53 302, 201 15 Years No Yes,
Ram S/O 07 Months Covered by
Dhani 25 days Rule 4(a)
Ram
11. Adarsh 36 364A, 302, 20 years No Yes,
Shukla 201 05 Months Covered by
S/O 07 days Rule 4(a)
Satyade
v Shukla
12. Harish 41 304B, 498A 14 years No Yes,
Chandra IPC 06 Months Covered by
Singh 01 days Rule 4(a)
S/O Raje
Singh
13. Rajendra 42 302, 201 15 years No Yes,
Singh 07 Months Covered by
S/O 22 days Rule 4(a)
Surjan
Singh
14. Naveen 39 304B, 498A 16 years No Yes,
Chandra IPC 07 months Covered by
Kandpal 05 days Rule 4(a)
S/O
Daya
Kisan
15. Harish 36 302 IPC 16 years, No Yes,
Singh 04 months Covered by
2024:UHC:7207-DB
s/o 22 days Rule 4(a)
Gopal
Singh
16. Arjun 46 302, 376, 20 years, NO Yes,
s/o Bala 201/34 IPC 03 Months Covered by
Singh 06 days Rule 4(a)
17. Aftab 42 302, 376, 20 Years, No Yes,
Ahmad 201 IPC 03 Months Covered by
Ansari 17 days Rule 4(a)
s/o
Shabir
Ahmad
18. Nandan 69 302/34 IPC 15 years No Yes,
Singh 11 Months Covered by
s/o 10 days Rule 4(a)
Bache
Singh
19. Puran 66 302/34 IPC 15 years No Yes,
Singh years 11 Months Covered by
S/O 11 days Rule 4(a)
Bache
Singh
20. Amir 43 302/34, 20 Years, No Yes,
S/O 376, 03 Months Covered by
Hamid 201/34 IPC 06 Days Rule 4(a)
21. Virendra 66 302/149, 15 years, No Yes,
S/O Shiv Years 325/149 10 Months Covered by
Prasad IPC 04 days Rule 4(a)
22. Ganga 51 302/34 IPC 16 Years No Yes,
Ram S/O years 03 Months Covered by
Rampal 15 days Rule 4(a)
23. Surjeet 60 302/149 , 16 years No Yes,
Singh years 148 IPC 11 Months Covered by
S/O 15 days Rule 4(a)
Chanan
Singh
24. Dharme 37 302, 364A, 16 years, No Yes,
ndra s/o years 201 IPC 02 Months Covered by
Dhruv 05 days Rule 4(a)
Singh
25. Sundar 53 302, 436, 21 years, Yes, under NO
Singh Years 307 IPC 03 months Rule 5 (iv)
s/o Har 01 day
Singh
26. Chandra 35 376 14 years No Yes,
pal S/O years 02 Months Covered by
Govind 24 days Rule 4(a)
Singh
27. Jia Lal 65 302, 376 17 Years No Yes,
S/O Years (2) (f), 09 Months Covered by
Multani 363, 201 15 days Rule 4(a)
IPC
28. Sukhpal 52 302, 364 17 years NO Yes,
S/O Ram Years IPC 00 Months Covered by
2024:UHC:7207-DB
Singh 09 days Rule 4(a)
29. Deep 66 376, 201 18 Years No Yes,
Chand Years IPC 08 Months Covered by
S/O 01 Day Rule 4(a)
Banarsi
Jamadar
30. Sushil 51 302/34, 15 Years, No Yes,
S/O Years 323/34 IPC 07 Covered by
Mahendr Months, Rule 4(a)
a 25 days
31. Kailash 51 302/34, 14 years No Yes,
Singh Years 201/34 IPC 05 months Covered by
S/O ram 09 days Rule 4(a)
Singh
32. Iklaq 46 302/149, 17 years No Yes,
S/O years 147, 148 04 months Covered by
Sabbir IPC 01 day Rule 4(a)
33. Abad 39 302, 34 IPC 15 years No Yes,
S/O years and 4/25 01 month Covered by
Saeed arms act 11 days Rule 4(a)
34. Ompal 51 302/34, 14 years NO Yes,
S/O Years 307/34 IPC 05 months Covered by
Raghubir 28 days Rule 4(a)
19. Out of these 34 inmates, one inmate, namely
Sunder Singh, S/o Har Singh, at Sl. No.25, falls under
prohibited category as per Rule 5 (iv) of the 2022
Policy, because he has been convicted for multiple
murders. Therefore, the Committee has rightly not
recommended his case for premature release. After
going through the list, it is found that 33 inmates do
not fall under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of
the 2022 Policy.
20. After getting report from the Presiding
Officer, their cases ought to have been recommended
for release keeping in view the fact that they do not fall
under the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5. Hence,
the above said inmates are also eligible for premature
2024:UHC:7207-DB
release.
21. Reference can now be made to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ram
Chander vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.,
Writ Petition (Crl) No.49 of 2022", dated
22.04.2022, where the Supreme Court was considering
the case of a single accused, and observed that the
discretion vests with the government to suspend or
remit the sentence, the executive power cannot be
exercised arbitrarily. The decision of the Government
has to be lawful and fair as per Article 14 of the
Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred
the judgment in the case of "State of Haryana v.
Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394". The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the power of remission cannot
be exercised arbitrarily, and the decision to grant
remission should be informed, fair and reasonable.
22. As per the above said judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case, even if the
inmates are not covered under the Prohibited Category
as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, no such reasons have
been given as to why they cannot be released,
especially, keeping in view that recommendation for
release of almost 74 inmates has been made.
2024:UHC:7207-DB
23. Reference can now be made to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajo
@Rajwa @Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar,
Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s).252 of 2023", dated
25.08.2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was
examining the case of premature release of a convict,
who was in custody for the last 24 years without grant
of remission or parole, and that accused was 40 years
of age when he committed the crime. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court allowed the writ petition.
24. Since this Court had initiated suo motu
proceedings in this case, keeping in view the above
fact, this Court proceeds to give direction for release of
seventy-one inmates who have not been recommended
for their premature release and other inmates, who are
not covered under the Prohibited Category as per Rule
5 of the 2022 Policy. Keeping in view the undergoing
period of these inmates, the Court restraints to give
direction to the respondents to reconsider the cases of
those accused, whose cases have not been
recommended for release, but are not covered under
the Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022
Policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already
observed that the cases of premature release have to
2024:UHC:7207-DB
be decided by the Government not in an arbitrary
manner. The decision of the Government has to be
lawful and fair as per Article 14 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of this writ petition, following data
has been considered:-
Total inmates considered for release 167 + 37 =204
Committee
Direction given by this Court for 38 + 33 =71
consideration for premature release
consideration of premature release
25. Reference can now be made to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of "Hussainara Khatoon & others vs. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; In Re-
Human Conditions in 1382 Prisons, Writ Petition
(Civil) No.406 of 2013, dated 23.08.2024. The case
of Hussainara Khatoon, deals with release of the
under-trial prisoners where they could not furnish the
surety bonds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given
direction that if a convict is unable to furnish surety
bonds, he must be released on the personal bond. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the procedure
which keeps such large numbers of people behind bars
without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as
2024:UHC:7207-DB
reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with
the requirement of Article 21. Imprisonment of
undertrials is a denial of human rights and withholding
of basis freedom, and if the accused is not able to
furnish surety bond due to his/ her financial condition,
he/ she can be released on furnishing personal bond.
26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In
Re-Human Conditions in 1382 Prisons, has given
directions for releasing the under trials, who are in
prison on the ground that they cannot submit personal
bond for their release on bail, and it has further given
direction that if the under trial is unable to submit
surety bond, he/ she should be released on personal
bond.
27. The ratio of the above said judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the
present case as well. While releasing the inmates,
whose cases have been recommended by the State, as
well as those inmates, who do not fall under the
Prohibited Category as per Rule 5 of the 2022 Policy, as
reflected in Paragraph Nos.16 and 18, they should be
released. They are also directed to be released keeping
in view that if some of the inmates are not able to
furnish surety bonds, they can be released on
2024:UHC:7207-DB
furnishing personal bonds.
28. Since as per the letter dated 23.09.2024,
forty-five cases have been sent for consideration to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, District Magistrates
and the Presiding Officers of the concerned Court, and
they have been asked to submit their respective
reports. Since these cases will take some time, this
petition is being disposed of by giving direction to the
respondents- State to consider the cases of all the
inmates as per the observations made in this judgment
after following due process of law and after examing
the 2022 Policy.
29. This Court further appreciates the steps
taken by the respondents since this Court had issued
suo motu notice on 20.03.2024 in considering the case
of almost 167 inmates for premature release. The
object of keeping the inmates in custody is to reform
them so that when an accused comes out from jail, he
can lead a positive and healthy life. Detaining them
beyond the period of conviction will not be good for
their mental health as well, and in this backdrop, the
State will consider all the pending 45 cases. After
examining the cases of 45 inmates, report will be sent
to this Court after six weeks.
2024:UHC:7207-DB
30. The writ petition is being disposed of in the
above terms.
31. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 27th September, 2024
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca
57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001,
KUMAR
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C208
92BC63A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT
KUMAR
Date: 2024.10.03 10:55:58 +05'30'
