The court’s legal analysis in a recent case highlights the significance of adhering to the state’s policy for pre-mature release considerations. This case sets a precedent for ensuring that post-conviction procedures, including remission or pre-mature release, align with the policies of the state where the offense took place. Stay tuned to learn more about the implications of this crucial legal ruling.
Facts
- Ramesh Rupabhai was a co-accused who faced trial along with the petitioner and was convicted in 2008.
- Ramesh Rupabhai filed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking pre-mature release in 2013, which was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay in August 2013.
- The crime was committed in Gujarat, and Ramesh Rupabhai’s trial was transferred to Mumbai for trial and disposal.
- The petitioner was convicted for offences and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life in January 2008 by the trial Court in Mumbai.
- The trial was transferred to Mumbai under the directions of the Court in August 2004.
- Once the trial is concluded and the prisoner is convicted, the appropriate prison would be in the State of Gujarat.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- The present petition has been filed by the convict petitioner seeking direction in the nature of Mandamus to the State of Gujarat to consider his application for pre-mature release under the policy dated 9 July, 1992.
- The petitioner along with other co-accused persons faced trial for the offence under Section 302, 376(2)(e )(g) read with Section 149 IPC committed in the State of Gujarat in 2004.
- In cases where a liberal policy is in effect during the consideration of premature release for a ‘lifer’, the benefit should be given to the individual.
- Counsel for the respondents cited the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan also known as Murugan and Others (2010(4) SCC 216) for support.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The State must exercise its power of remission keeping the benefit to the convict in mind and construe it liberally.
- The policy for the co-accused Ramesh Rupabhai’s premature release was to be examined according to the applicable policy in Gujarat.
- The petitioner’s plea for premature release was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat citing Section 432(7) CrPC and a previous Supreme Court judgment.
- The petitioner has served over 15 years 4 months without remission as of 1 April 2022.
- The applicable policy for the petitioner’s premature release is Resolution No JLK/3390/CM/16/Part/2/J dated 9 July 1992 in Gujarat.
- The application for premature release should be considered based on the policy at the time of conviction as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish.
- The convict’s expectation at the time of conviction regarding premature release based on the short-sentencing policy in place must be taken into account by the State authority.
- The appropriate Government for considering pre-mature release in this case is the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed.
- The High Court of Bombay declined to consider the application for pre-mature release and left it to be examined according to the policy applicable in Gujarat.
- The judgment on which the respondents relied is not applicable as there cannot be concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC.
- Once the trial concludes and a conviction is passed, all further proceedings including remission or pre-mature release must follow the policies of the State where the crime was committed.
- The petition is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the respondents are directed to consider the application for pre-mature release within two months based on Gujarat’s policy applicable at the time of conviction.
Case Title: RADHESHYAM BHAGWANDAS SHAH @ LALA VAKIL Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022 INSC 574)
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000135 / 2022
