In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has ordered the reconsideration of the petitioners’ premature release cases. The respondent has highlighted positive aspects of the petitioners’ cases, urging the Court to reconsider the Sentence Review Board’s decisions. This decision addresses the individual circumstances and principles of reformation in the cases of Kuldeep, Mazhar-Ul-Islam, Rama Shankar, and Mukesh Kumar. Stay tuned for further updates on this legal matter.
Facts
- The petitioners, namely Kuldeep, Mazhar-Ul-Islam, Rama Shankar, and Mukesh Kumar, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for different offences.
- The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Section 482 CrPC seeking premature release by challenging the orders of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) that rejected their applications for premature release.
- The present Writ Petition seeks premature release based on the rejection of their applications by the SRB on 30.06.2023.
- The Court dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence previously filed by the petitioners.
- The petitioners’ request for premature release was not entertained under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
- Kuldeep, son of Sh. Raghubir Singh, is a 39-year-old individual convicted of murder under FIR No.168/2004, U/S 302/364 IPC, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi for killing his wife due to matrimonial differences.
- The convict has served a total of 22 years, 07 months, and 05 days with remission, out of which 18 years, 03 months, and 16 days were actual imprisonment.
- During his sentence, Kuldeep has been granted bail once, Parole six times, and Furlough sixteen times.
- The case involves a serious offense and highlights the consequences of domestic conflicts leading to tragic outcomes.
Arguments
- The respondent contends that the SRB’s orders rejecting the petitioners’ pre-mature release lacked specificity and did not consider the individual circumstances of the case.
- The respondent argues that the SRB did not give due consideration to principles of reformation when dismissing the petitioners’ applications for early release.
- The respondent highlights positive aspects of the petitioners’ cases, such as the absence of any prior punishments, family responsibilities, and their active involvement in jail activities, including receiving appreciation from the prison administration.
- The respondent urges the Court to take into account these favorable elements in the petitioners’ cases and reconsider the SRB’s decisions.
Analysis
- The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law or act in contravention of statutory provisions.
- An exercise of power without consideration of relevant factors will be considered manifestly erroneous.
- Three factors required to be considered for premature release under the policy of 2004: potential for committing crime, possibility of reclaiming as a useful member of society, socio-economic condition of convict’s family.
- The grant of furlough or extension must be in accordance with the Rules and is meant as an incentive for good conduct in prison.
- Considerations for premature release include conduct in jail, potential for committing crime, potential as a useful member of society, and socio-economic condition of the family.
- Rules dictate eligibility and conditions for furlough, including the period and number of spells it can be granted.
- Existence of a legal right and corresponding duty by the State is necessary for a mandamus to be issued.
- Completion of 14 years in prison does not automatically entitle a convict to release; the SRB has discretion based on circumstances of the crime and other relevant factors.
- The period spent on furlough counts towards the sentence, as per Rule 1221.
- Furlough can only be granted in accordance with the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and exemption from surrendering is in violation of the Rules.
- Convicts in Uttar Pradesh sought premature release.
- The petitioner seeks release on parole until his name is considered for premature release.
- The exercise of statutory power is different from judicial review.
- A similar contention for parole was rejected in a previous case.
- Direct and indirect actions must align in legal matters.
- The Supreme Court issued peremptory directions regarding premature release policy in Uttar Pradesh.
- The Court cannot indirectly grant relief that it cannot grant directly.
- Court must act within statutory command as per previous judgments.
- Furlough was granted by competent authority for two weeks under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
- No direction can be given to extend furlough pending consideration of petitioner’s case for pre-mature release by SRB, as per rules.
- The benefit of the direction in the previous case where interim bail was granted does not apply here as no bail was granted by the Court in this case.
Decision
- The petitioners are granted two weeks to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent.
- The petition is allowed, and the respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for premature release.
- Reconsideration should be done in accordance with the policy dated 16.07.2004 or the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, whichever is more beneficial to the petitioners.
- The decision on premature release should be uploaded within one week after approval by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
Case Title: KULDEEP & ORS. Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:4727)
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)-3840/2023
