The Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal has directed the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to delete a provision of sub-clause (I) of Clause-3 of the policy dated 1.8.2018 framed for release of life convicts which prohibits the consideration of premature release.
Background of the Case
The Court has passed the above order while dealing with a plea filed by one Satyavrat Rai seeking direction for quashing of an order dated 2nd March 2020 passed by the State- refusing to release the petitioner under Section 433 of the Code and also for quashing of order dated 29.1.2021 by way of an amendment application dated 01.02.2021 whereby the request for release was again declined.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in custody since 18th March 1998 in connection with the case registered against him under Sections 302/34/504/506 IPC, in P.S. Cantt., Gorakhpur.
During the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007. He preferred an appeal before this Court and was released on bail on 1.10.2012. His appeal finally came to be dismissed on 23.5.2014. He surrendered before the court below on 23.8.2014 and since then he is in jail and as of date has undergone incarceration of more than 17 years.
Upon completing 16 years of custody, the mother of the petitioner staked a claim for release of her son under Section 433 of the Code on 27th July, 2019 before the State Government. But as the claim was not decided, the petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition which came to be disposed on 30.9.2019 with a direction to decide the claim within 3 months. Pursuant thereto, the claim came to be rejected on 2.3.2020, impugned in the present petition.
The claim was rejected on the sole ground that the total detention period of the petitioner was only 12 years 10 months 29 days as against the requisite period of 16 years (without remission) under the Government Order dated 1 st August 2018. It appears that the State Government while passing the order dated 2.3.2020 was misleading as it did not have before it, the custody warrant of the petitioner taking him into the custody by the C.J.M., Gorakhpur on 18.3.1998 in Case registered against him under Sections 302/34/504/506 IPC, P.S. Cantt., Gorakhpur.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner challenged the impugned orders passed by the State Government against the petitioner. However, the Counsel on behalf of the respondent opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and submitted that the power under Section 433 of the Code is an extraordinary power conferred on the State which is to be exercised on the parameters laid in the policy dated 1.8.2018.
It was further submitted that the order dated 2.3.2020 by which the claim was rejected on the ground of incomplete detention period, would not prevent the State Government, considering other materials on record, while having a fresh relook under the order dated 29.1.2021.
Observation and Decision of the Court
The Court has observed that the Court in the light of the above backdrop examined the entire records and do not find any conviction of the petitioner as a hired assassin for contract killing as:
“it is alleged by the petitioner in his amendment application dated 1.2.2021 that out of 4 murder cases registered against him, he stands convicted in S.T. No.142/1998, arising out of Case Crime No.1311/1997 on the premise that murders of two deceased were committed in broad day light in view of previous enmity, in which he undisputedly has undergone incarceration for more than 17 years; in Case Crime No.1539/2006; he is enlisted as witness of charge-sheet and in other two cases i.e. 796/2005 and 17 670/2013, he stands acquitted with no appeal either by the State or by the victim. The application/affidavit dated 01.02.2021 stands unrebutted.”
The Court rejected the plea on the ground that this plea is not enlisted as a prohibition under Clause 3 of the policy from consideration under Section 433 of the Code and rightly so as otherwise, it would become a convenient ploy for the family of the victim to defeat the claim for release of the convict under Section 433 of the Code in every case.
The court while explaining the provisions under section 433 and scope of judicial review has held that,
“In the light of above discussion, are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29.1.2021 has been passed mechanically, without any application of mind on irrelevant considerations, which is liable to be set aside.”
Case details
Case no.: Crl. M.W.P. No.8418 of 2020
Petitioner:- Satyavrat Rai
Respondent: - State of U.P. and others
Counsel for Petitioner: - Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for Respondent: - G.A., Sudhir Mehrotra
Bench: Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
